They refer to each other using slurs to indicate ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation constantly, regardless of what subject matter is being discussed. Whole slews of new, vile terms have been invented there, and propagated from there out into the wider world.
Guys, this thread is about internet policy and net neutrality, not free speech. I think we have a free speech thread somewhere, and I think like this discussion might be better placed there. This isn't the general "a thing on the internet" thread.
BREAKING: We won our lawsuit against the Daily Stormer!
We sued this white supremacist website after they led a racist online harassment campaign against a former Black student at American Univ.
This case should send a strong message to other racists across the US.
Our victory against the Daily Stormer marks the first decision to ever hold that online harassment can interfere with equal rights to enjoy public accommodations.
We will continue fighting to eliminate hate root and branch.
A group of 50 attorneys general from 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico unveiled a major antitrust investigation of Google Monday, sharply escalating the regulatory scrutiny facing the tech giant.
The probe will focus on whether Google (GOOG) has harmed competition and consumers, looking at least initially into the company's conduct in its search, advertising and other businesses, though it may expand from there.
Speaking to reporters in front of the US Supreme Court Monday, a group of 13 attorneys general struck a bipartisan tone. Karl Racine, attorney general of the District of Columbia, said it was an "unusual setting" for a group that typically disagrees on issues ranging from gun control to reproductive rights.
Meh, what bumbfuck Galt-Gultch wasteland is Google going to coerce its talent to "flee" to?
That’s a pretty shitty way to refer to everywhere not CA...
Yeah, California is hardly a paradise. I moved this year and California was one of my top "no fucking way" states. And for people with money, there are tons of places in the US that are anything but the hellscape that it's fashionable in California to label everything outside their borders.
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Meh, what bumbfuck Galt-Gultch wasteland is Google going to coerce its talent to "flee" to?
That’s a pretty shitty way to refer to everywhere not CA...
Yeah, California is hardly a paradise. I moved this year and California was one of my top "no fucking way" states. And for people with money, there are tons of places in the US that are anything but the hellscape that it's fashionable in California to label everything outside their borders.
Yeah, but those places all have weather. And who can be bothered with that.
Meh, what bumbfuck Galt-Gultch wasteland is Google going to coerce its talent to "flee" to?
That’s a pretty shitty way to refer to everywhere not CA...
Yeah, California is hardly a paradise. I moved this year and California was one of my top "no fucking way" states. And for people with money, there are tons of places in the US that are anything but the hellscape that it's fashionable in California to label everything outside their borders.
Yeah, but those places all have weather. And who can be bothered with that.
Meh, what bumbfuck Galt-Gultch wasteland is Google going to coerce its talent to "flee" to?
That’s a pretty shitty way to refer to everywhere not CA...
Yeah, California is hardly a paradise. I moved this year and California was one of my top "no fucking way" states. And for people with money, there are tons of places in the US that are anything but the hellscape that it's fashionable in California to label everything outside their borders.
Yeah, but those places all have weather. And who can be bothered with that.
Weather =/= “bumbfuck Galt-Gultch wasteland”
I'm pretty sure he was being a little snarky less about not-California and more about not-has-somewhat-reasonable-labor-laws.
Also, everyone knows that bumbfuck Galt-Gulch wasteland is in California. :V
The lack of seasons is my penultimate complaint with SoCal, just behind the housing prices.
As a Midwesterner, I'm pretty sure I'd be bored to death of the (lack of) weather in pretty much anywhere in world.
Not me. I was Midwesterner, and I now live in California, and the so-called "Lack of Weather" is AMAZING here. Simply amazing. Fuck snow, fuck changing your fucking tires every winter, and fuck super-hot scorching summers.
The shift toward using an app on your phone to place an order, instead of using your phone to call a place, has made life easier for millions of people. Unfortunately, that shift has the opposite effect on blind and visually impaired consumers, for whom thousands of websites and mobile apps are unusable. Domino's Pizza maintains one such site, and it's asking the Supreme Court to let the site stay that way.
Domino's made a legal filing called a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court last week—basically, an argument for why the nation's highest court should take its case. In the petition (PDF), Domino's asks the court to determine whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires a retailer's website or app to "satisfy discrete accessibility requirements with respect to individuals with disabilities."
"Websites and mobile apps do not become public accommodations simply by virtue of providing access to the goods and services of a brick-and-mortar enterprise," the pizza chain argues. The ADA "does not demand full accessibility for each and every means of accessing the goods or services a public accommodation provides to the public."
"Hey, it's cool to treat the disabled as second class citizens as long as we provide some sort of accommodation (and never mind the leopard.)"
In follow-up, SCOTUS has denied cert. Web and mobile apps are public accommodations under the ADA.
That is such a weird hill for Domino's to plant its flag on. Accessibility options for their site would be absolutely trivial these days, and I'd be stunned if it didn't cost way less than their chosen path of arguing what's going to be multiple Supreme Court cases.
That is such a weird hill for Domino's to plant its flag on. Accessibility options for their site would be absolutely trivial these days, and I'd be stunned if it didn't cost way less than their chosen path of arguing what's going to be multiple Supreme Court cases.
Mostly the issue is the screen readers themselves. They don't operate in a uniform way. Designing for them has to be undertaken at a really foundational level that is amazingly reminiscent of the browser wars. It's not simply adding some tags and cleaning up code. There's some shit that different screen readers read differently and you can't present a wholly different experience to the blind so the actual result is that your do in fact need a full redesign of your site to eliminate features and elements screen readers cannot properly process and to unify both the visual and screen reader experiences while also confirming that all screen readers can in fact process your site across all browser and screen reader combinations (baseline you're gonna need to manually full regression test your site on about 30 to 40 different platforms with your eyes closed and then again with your eyes open).
The actual redesigns are year long or longer projects that will cost millions because it is a foundational rewrite that tons of stakeholders need to weigh in on and participate in. Like even if the end of the line coding and implementation are relatively simplistic there's a whole costly bureaucracy everything feeds through before that work can even be done.
As well there's likely a giant backlog of changes and features that are attempting to move forward in that bureaucracy at the same time that have been pinned to business expectations upon their completion and all of those would need to either be placed on hold or just totally forgotten as the entire front end of the site is redesigned and rewritten.
100% the web should be redesigned to stop excluding the blind. Unfortunately from a BA perspective... those changes are basically cost only maintenance changes that will not recognizably increase revenue. Even worse they are changes that will undermine all other plans for the platform on a number of levels. Especially in the case of someone like Domino's who in the past decade already went through with a multimillion dollar complete site redesign I can understand why they don't want to do that again immediately. I mean they're catastrophically wrong in this, but I totally understand why it's happening.
The shift toward using an app on your phone to place an order, instead of using your phone to call a place, has made life easier for millions of people. Unfortunately, that shift has the opposite effect on blind and visually impaired consumers, for whom thousands of websites and mobile apps are unusable. Domino's Pizza maintains one such site, and it's asking the Supreme Court to let the site stay that way.
Domino's made a legal filing called a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court last week—basically, an argument for why the nation's highest court should take its case. In the petition (PDF), Domino's asks the court to determine whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires a retailer's website or app to "satisfy discrete accessibility requirements with respect to individuals with disabilities."
"Websites and mobile apps do not become public accommodations simply by virtue of providing access to the goods and services of a brick-and-mortar enterprise," the pizza chain argues. The ADA "does not demand full accessibility for each and every means of accessing the goods or services a public accommodation provides to the public."
"Hey, it's cool to treat the disabled as second class citizens as long as we provide some sort of accommodation (and never mind the leopard.)"
In follow-up, SCOTUS has denied cert. Web and mobile apps are public accommodations under the ADA.
Awesome, maybe when they do their redesign, they can also take some time making sure their shit site plays nice with ad blocking stuff.
The shift toward using an app on your phone to place an order, instead of using your phone to call a place, has made life easier for millions of people. Unfortunately, that shift has the opposite effect on blind and visually impaired consumers, for whom thousands of websites and mobile apps are unusable. Domino's Pizza maintains one such site, and it's asking the Supreme Court to let the site stay that way.
Domino's made a legal filing called a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court last week—basically, an argument for why the nation's highest court should take its case. In the petition (PDF), Domino's asks the court to determine whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires a retailer's website or app to "satisfy discrete accessibility requirements with respect to individuals with disabilities."
"Websites and mobile apps do not become public accommodations simply by virtue of providing access to the goods and services of a brick-and-mortar enterprise," the pizza chain argues. The ADA "does not demand full accessibility for each and every means of accessing the goods or services a public accommodation provides to the public."
"Hey, it's cool to treat the disabled as second class citizens as long as we provide some sort of accommodation (and never mind the leopard.)"
In follow-up, SCOTUS has denied cert. Web and mobile apps are public accommodations under the ADA.
Awesome, maybe when they do their redesign, they can also take some time making sure their shit site plays nice with ad blocking stuff.
Ha that's a total fuckin pipe dream. If they could they would probably do their best to make it so ad blocking hard breaks the site.
The shift toward using an app on your phone to place an order, instead of using your phone to call a place, has made life easier for millions of people. Unfortunately, that shift has the opposite effect on blind and visually impaired consumers, for whom thousands of websites and mobile apps are unusable. Domino's Pizza maintains one such site, and it's asking the Supreme Court to let the site stay that way.
Domino's made a legal filing called a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court last week—basically, an argument for why the nation's highest court should take its case. In the petition (PDF), Domino's asks the court to determine whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires a retailer's website or app to "satisfy discrete accessibility requirements with respect to individuals with disabilities."
"Websites and mobile apps do not become public accommodations simply by virtue of providing access to the goods and services of a brick-and-mortar enterprise," the pizza chain argues. The ADA "does not demand full accessibility for each and every means of accessing the goods or services a public accommodation provides to the public."
"Hey, it's cool to treat the disabled as second class citizens as long as we provide some sort of accommodation (and never mind the leopard.)"
In follow-up, SCOTUS has denied cert. Web and mobile apps are public accommodations under the ADA.
Awesome, maybe when they do their redesign, they can also take some time making sure their shit site plays nice with ad blocking stuff.
Ha that's a total fuckin pipe dream. If they could they would probably do their best to make it so ad blocking hard breaks the site.
Last I checked, their site doesn't work if you have ad block running. They have something half-assed in their code that doesn't play well with it. I do look forward to them starting to experience a drop in sales because I know I'm not the only one that refuses to do business with shitty companies that insist that I can't run ad blocker and access their site. Honestly, the whole "turn off ad blocker" thing should be illegal and they shouldn't be running ads that use html, given how easy it is for bad actors to exploit html. Then there is the whole thing of not wanting to deal with fucking obnoxious ads that flash or blare out crap at you once they load up enough.
The shift toward using an app on your phone to place an order, instead of using your phone to call a place, has made life easier for millions of people. Unfortunately, that shift has the opposite effect on blind and visually impaired consumers, for whom thousands of websites and mobile apps are unusable. Domino's Pizza maintains one such site, and it's asking the Supreme Court to let the site stay that way.
Domino's made a legal filing called a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court last week—basically, an argument for why the nation's highest court should take its case. In the petition (PDF), Domino's asks the court to determine whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires a retailer's website or app to "satisfy discrete accessibility requirements with respect to individuals with disabilities."
"Websites and mobile apps do not become public accommodations simply by virtue of providing access to the goods and services of a brick-and-mortar enterprise," the pizza chain argues. The ADA "does not demand full accessibility for each and every means of accessing the goods or services a public accommodation provides to the public."
"Hey, it's cool to treat the disabled as second class citizens as long as we provide some sort of accommodation (and never mind the leopard.)"
In follow-up, SCOTUS has denied cert. Web and mobile apps are public accommodations under the ADA.
Awesome, maybe when they do their redesign, they can also take some time making sure their shit site plays nice with ad blocking stuff.
Ha that's a total fuckin pipe dream. If they could they would probably do their best to make it so ad blocking hard breaks the site.
Last I checked, their site doesn't work if you have ad block running. They have something half-assed in their code that doesn't play well with it. I do look forward to them starting to experience a drop in sales because I know I'm not the only one that refuses to do business with shitty companies that insist that I can't run ad blocker and access their site. Honestly, the whole "turn off ad blocker" thing should be illegal and they shouldn't be running ads that use html, given how easy it is for bad actors to exploit html. Then there is the whole thing of not wanting to deal with fucking obnoxious ads that flash or blare out crap at you once they load up enough.
I used the Domino's site just a week or two ago with adblocker just fine. Could be a regional thing, or different versions of adblocker maybe? Or it was unintentional and they fixed it? Or intentional and they broke it :P
The shift toward using an app on your phone to place an order, instead of using your phone to call a place, has made life easier for millions of people. Unfortunately, that shift has the opposite effect on blind and visually impaired consumers, for whom thousands of websites and mobile apps are unusable. Domino's Pizza maintains one such site, and it's asking the Supreme Court to let the site stay that way.
Domino's made a legal filing called a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court last week—basically, an argument for why the nation's highest court should take its case. In the petition (PDF), Domino's asks the court to determine whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires a retailer's website or app to "satisfy discrete accessibility requirements with respect to individuals with disabilities."
"Websites and mobile apps do not become public accommodations simply by virtue of providing access to the goods and services of a brick-and-mortar enterprise," the pizza chain argues. The ADA "does not demand full accessibility for each and every means of accessing the goods or services a public accommodation provides to the public."
"Hey, it's cool to treat the disabled as second class citizens as long as we provide some sort of accommodation (and never mind the leopard.)"
In follow-up, SCOTUS has denied cert. Web and mobile apps are public accommodations under the ADA.
Awesome, maybe when they do their redesign, they can also take some time making sure their shit site plays nice with ad blocking stuff.
Ha that's a total fuckin pipe dream. If they could they would probably do their best to make it so ad blocking hard breaks the site.
Last I checked, their site doesn't work if you have ad block running. They have something half-assed in their code that doesn't play well with it. I do look forward to them starting to experience a drop in sales because I know I'm not the only one that refuses to do business with shitty companies that insist that I can't run ad blocker and access their site. Honestly, the whole "turn off ad blocker" thing should be illegal and they shouldn't be running ads that use html, given how easy it is for bad actors to exploit html. Then there is the whole thing of not wanting to deal with fucking obnoxious ads that flash or blare out crap at you once they load up enough.
I mean you're kinda preaching to the choir here on the entire implementation of the internet being wrong at a basic level. However no one's ever going to make that illegal and there is absolutely no need for those places to make their site work for folks that insist on disabling a portion of the code they are serving.
That is such a weird hill for Domino's to plant its flag on. Accessibility options for their site would be absolutely trivial these days, and I'd be stunned if it didn't cost way less than their chosen path of arguing what's going to be multiple Supreme Court cases.
Mostly the issue is the screen readers themselves. They don't operate in a uniform way. Designing for them has to be undertaken at a really foundational level that is amazingly reminiscent of the browser wars. It's not simply adding some tags and cleaning up code. There's some shit that different screen readers read differently and you can't present a wholly different experience to the blind so the actual result is that your do in fact need a full redesign of your site to eliminate features and elements screen readers cannot properly process and to unify both the visual and screen reader experiences while also confirming that all screen readers can in fact process your site across all browser and screen reader combinations (baseline you're gonna need to manually full regression test your site on about 30 to 40 different platforms with your eyes closed and then again with your eyes open).
The actual redesigns are year long or longer projects that will cost millions because it is a foundational rewrite that tons of stakeholders need to weigh in on and participate in. Like even if the end of the line coding and implementation are relatively simplistic there's a whole costly bureaucracy everything feeds through before that work can even be done.
As well there's likely a giant backlog of changes and features that are attempting to move forward in that bureaucracy at the same time that have been pinned to business expectations upon their completion and all of those would need to either be placed on hold or just totally forgotten as the entire front end of the site is redesigned and rewritten.
100% the web should be redesigned to stop excluding the blind. Unfortunately from a BA perspective... those changes are basically cost only maintenance changes that will not recognizably increase revenue. Even worse they are changes that will undermine all other plans for the platform on a number of levels. Especially in the case of someone like Domino's who in the past decade already went through with a multimillion dollar complete site redesign I can understand why they don't want to do that again immediately. I mean they're catastrophically wrong in this, but I totally understand why it's happening.
Sounds like someone needs to write a definitive standard for screen readers. Absolutely the internet needs to be accessible, but it shouldn't be on developers to support 40 different readers just because screen reader providers can't get their shit together.
Because if I don't post it, someone else will:
How much of a dick move would it be for companies to pick, say, the 2 or 3 most widely-used screen readers and only guarantee that the site will work with those? Basically the browser wars, like you said.
That is such a weird hill for Domino's to plant its flag on. Accessibility options for their site would be absolutely trivial these days, and I'd be stunned if it didn't cost way less than their chosen path of arguing what's going to be multiple Supreme Court cases.
Mostly the issue is the screen readers themselves. They don't operate in a uniform way. Designing for them has to be undertaken at a really foundational level that is amazingly reminiscent of the browser wars. It's not simply adding some tags and cleaning up code. There's some shit that different screen readers read differently and you can't present a wholly different experience to the blind so the actual result is that your do in fact need a full redesign of your site to eliminate features and elements screen readers cannot properly process and to unify both the visual and screen reader experiences while also confirming that all screen readers can in fact process your site across all browser and screen reader combinations (baseline you're gonna need to manually full regression test your site on about 30 to 40 different platforms with your eyes closed and then again with your eyes open).
The actual redesigns are year long or longer projects that will cost millions because it is a foundational rewrite that tons of stakeholders need to weigh in on and participate in. Like even if the end of the line coding and implementation are relatively simplistic there's a whole costly bureaucracy everything feeds through before that work can even be done.
As well there's likely a giant backlog of changes and features that are attempting to move forward in that bureaucracy at the same time that have been pinned to business expectations upon their completion and all of those would need to either be placed on hold or just totally forgotten as the entire front end of the site is redesigned and rewritten.
100% the web should be redesigned to stop excluding the blind. Unfortunately from a BA perspective... those changes are basically cost only maintenance changes that will not recognizably increase revenue. Even worse they are changes that will undermine all other plans for the platform on a number of levels. Especially in the case of someone like Domino's who in the past decade already went through with a multimillion dollar complete site redesign I can understand why they don't want to do that again immediately. I mean they're catastrophically wrong in this, but I totally understand why it's happening.
Sounds like someone needs to write a definitive standard for screen readers. Absolutely the internet needs to be accessible, but it shouldn't be on developers to support 40 different readers just because screen reader providers can't get their shit together.
Because if I don't post it, someone else will:
How much of a dick move would it be for companies to pick, say, the 2 or 3 most widely-used screen readers and only guarantee that the site will work with those? Basically the browser wars, like you said.
That's essentially what you end up settling on. You make sure the most standard combinations of browsers and screen readers works. That's what actually builds the vast array of testing platforms you need to hit by the way. There's 3 to 4 main screen readers that interact differently with the 4 main browsers. Meaning that a page can work with NVDA on firefox, but not chrome and in JAWS on chrome but not firefox, and fuckin neither of them works with IE. Then there's the whole apple, windows, linux divide to sort out in the testing matrix as well not to mention mobile and responsive versions of the page. However yeah any efforts to unify these into actual standards will just produce the xkcd issue. We could probably establish an actual legal code, kinda like ada compliance construction codes, but that would essentially mean nationalizing one of the organizations that produces a screen reader and declaring them the standard you need to hit for ADA code compliance, but that's a super sticky wicket for a whole wall of texts reasons.
Note that this will also force browsers to not update things as often if it will break compatibility. This is potentially a huge clusterfuck for UI support. Guaranteed many will try to end run through "download our app!"
Why bother just taking their money for pizza, when you can make more money off of serving them ads/harvesting their data to resell while they give you money for pizza?
This isn’t dominos selling my data. I assume they’re using location and any ethnographic data I’ve given permissions to for having their app. Does that require breaking ad blocking? I wouldn’t think so...
Is dominos trying to monetize traffic to their e-commerce site by serving ads for other companies?
Their site which exists to facilitate the sale and fulfillment of their own products?
The only ads should be them trying to get you to add to your order.
This isn’t dominos selling my data. I assume they’re using location and any ethnographic data I’ve given permissions to for having their app. Does that require breaking ad blocking? I wouldn’t think so...
Is dominos trying to monetize traffic to their e-commerce site by serving ads for other companies?
Their site which exists to facilitate the sale and fulfillment of their own products?
The only ads should be them trying to get you to add to your order.
Everybody is selling your data, including more than a few companies who pledge they aren’t. It’s a new source of revenue that can generate millions for a company.
Do you think the CEO and board of Dominos are taking an ethical stand against it, especially when consumers don’t seem to care?
This isn’t dominos selling my data. I assume they’re using location and any ethnographic data I’ve given permissions to for having their app. Does that require breaking ad blocking? I wouldn’t think so...
Is dominos trying to monetize traffic to their e-commerce site by serving ads for other companies?
Their site which exists to facilitate the sale and fulfillment of their own products?
The only ads should be them trying to get you to add to your order.
Having partners is useful for funding, there may in fact be semi exclusive offers with those partnerships. As well partnerships can sometimes drive conversions.
This isn’t dominos selling my data. I assume they’re using location and any ethnographic data I’ve given permissions to for having their app. Does that require breaking ad blocking? I wouldn’t think so...
Is dominos trying to monetize traffic to their e-commerce site by serving ads for other companies?
Their site which exists to facilitate the sale and fulfillment of their own products?
The only ads should be them trying to get you to add to your order.
Everybody is selling your data, including more than a few companies who pledge they aren’t. It’s a new source of revenue that can generate millions for a company.
Do you think the CEO and board of Dominos are taking an ethical stand against it, especially when consumers don’t seem to care?
What does this have to do with breaking ad blocking
I know dominos is using/selling the data they get from me having their mobile app
This isn’t dominos selling my data. I assume they’re using location and any ethnographic data I’ve given permissions to for having their app. Does that require breaking ad blocking? I wouldn’t think so...
Is dominos trying to monetize traffic to their e-commerce site by serving ads for other companies?
Their site which exists to facilitate the sale and fulfillment of their own products?
The only ads should be them trying to get you to add to your order.
Having partners is useful for funding, there may in fact be semi exclusive offers with those partnerships. As well partnerships can sometimes drive conversions.
Ecommerce is a weird game.
Ahhhhhh
Though they could embed this directly into their site assets though, which shouldn’t be affected by ad blockers, right?
I mean it’s all kind of pointless, I’m just flabbergasted at how shitty dominos appears to be about their digital stuff.
Posts
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
For now, at least. Anglin and the Daily Stormer just lost a major lawsuit:
Kristen Clarke is the president and executive director of the National Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Only CA and AL are not participating.
That’s a pretty shitty way to refer to everywhere not CA...
Yeah, California is hardly a paradise. I moved this year and California was one of my top "no fucking way" states. And for people with money, there are tons of places in the US that are anything but the hellscape that it's fashionable in California to label everything outside their borders.
Yeah, but those places all have weather. And who can be bothered with that.
Weather =/= “bumbfuck Galt-Gultch wasteland”
I'm pretty sure he was being a little snarky less about not-California and more about not-has-somewhat-reasonable-labor-laws.
Also, everyone knows that bumbfuck Galt-Gulch wasteland is in California. :V
As a Midwesterner, I'm pretty sure I'd be bored to death of the (lack of) weather in pretty much anywhere in world.
We do have weather though.
Spring, Summer, Wildfire, Fall, Winter
Come visit Melbourne, Australia.
While we don't get the dangerous weathers, we definitely have days where there's frost, sun, rain, hail, and decent winds, all in a single day.
...and?
Aaaaand.... we don't have Donald Trump?
Got some shitty politicians, so you won't feel completely out of place.
And it's becoming summer, so there's warm weather ahead.
Don't mean "and" as in what else you got.
Meant "and" as in "is that the craziest the weather gets there, or is there more?"
Because you're basically describing what a quarter of the days for the next three months are going to be here.
In follow-up, SCOTUS has denied cert. Web and mobile apps are public accommodations under the ADA.
Mostly the issue is the screen readers themselves. They don't operate in a uniform way. Designing for them has to be undertaken at a really foundational level that is amazingly reminiscent of the browser wars. It's not simply adding some tags and cleaning up code. There's some shit that different screen readers read differently and you can't present a wholly different experience to the blind so the actual result is that your do in fact need a full redesign of your site to eliminate features and elements screen readers cannot properly process and to unify both the visual and screen reader experiences while also confirming that all screen readers can in fact process your site across all browser and screen reader combinations (baseline you're gonna need to manually full regression test your site on about 30 to 40 different platforms with your eyes closed and then again with your eyes open).
The actual redesigns are year long or longer projects that will cost millions because it is a foundational rewrite that tons of stakeholders need to weigh in on and participate in. Like even if the end of the line coding and implementation are relatively simplistic there's a whole costly bureaucracy everything feeds through before that work can even be done.
As well there's likely a giant backlog of changes and features that are attempting to move forward in that bureaucracy at the same time that have been pinned to business expectations upon their completion and all of those would need to either be placed on hold or just totally forgotten as the entire front end of the site is redesigned and rewritten.
100% the web should be redesigned to stop excluding the blind. Unfortunately from a BA perspective... those changes are basically cost only maintenance changes that will not recognizably increase revenue. Even worse they are changes that will undermine all other plans for the platform on a number of levels. Especially in the case of someone like Domino's who in the past decade already went through with a multimillion dollar complete site redesign I can understand why they don't want to do that again immediately. I mean they're catastrophically wrong in this, but I totally understand why it's happening.
Awesome, maybe when they do their redesign, they can also take some time making sure their shit site plays nice with ad blocking stuff.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Ha that's a total fuckin pipe dream. If they could they would probably do their best to make it so ad blocking hard breaks the site.
Last I checked, their site doesn't work if you have ad block running. They have something half-assed in their code that doesn't play well with it. I do look forward to them starting to experience a drop in sales because I know I'm not the only one that refuses to do business with shitty companies that insist that I can't run ad blocker and access their site. Honestly, the whole "turn off ad blocker" thing should be illegal and they shouldn't be running ads that use html, given how easy it is for bad actors to exploit html. Then there is the whole thing of not wanting to deal with fucking obnoxious ads that flash or blare out crap at you once they load up enough.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I used the Domino's site just a week or two ago with adblocker just fine. Could be a regional thing, or different versions of adblocker maybe? Or it was unintentional and they fixed it? Or intentional and they broke it :P
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I mean you're kinda preaching to the choir here on the entire implementation of the internet being wrong at a basic level. However no one's ever going to make that illegal and there is absolutely no need for those places to make their site work for folks that insist on disabling a portion of the code they are serving.
Sounds like someone needs to write a definitive standard for screen readers. Absolutely the internet needs to be accessible, but it shouldn't be on developers to support 40 different readers just because screen reader providers can't get their shit together.
Because if I don't post it, someone else will:
How much of a dick move would it be for companies to pick, say, the 2 or 3 most widely-used screen readers and only guarantee that the site will work with those? Basically the browser wars, like you said.
That's essentially what you end up settling on. You make sure the most standard combinations of browsers and screen readers works. That's what actually builds the vast array of testing platforms you need to hit by the way. There's 3 to 4 main screen readers that interact differently with the 4 main browsers. Meaning that a page can work with NVDA on firefox, but not chrome and in JAWS on chrome but not firefox, and fuckin neither of them works with IE. Then there's the whole apple, windows, linux divide to sort out in the testing matrix as well not to mention mobile and responsive versions of the page. However yeah any efforts to unify these into actual standards will just produce the xkcd issue. We could probably establish an actual legal code, kinda like ada compliance construction codes, but that would essentially mean nationalizing one of the organizations that produces a screen reader and declaring them the standard you need to hit for ADA code compliance, but that's a super sticky wicket for a whole wall of texts reasons.
They’re a pizza company not a data company
Everyone's a data company now, regardless of whether or not they want to be one.
Why bother just taking their money for pizza, when you can make more money off of serving them ads/harvesting their data to resell while they give you money for pizza?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Just like every employee is potentially customer-facing, ditto.
This isn’t dominos selling my data. I assume they’re using location and any ethnographic data I’ve given permissions to for having their app. Does that require breaking ad blocking? I wouldn’t think so...
Is dominos trying to monetize traffic to their e-commerce site by serving ads for other companies?
Their site which exists to facilitate the sale and fulfillment of their own products?
The only ads should be them trying to get you to add to your order.
Everybody is selling your data, including more than a few companies who pledge they aren’t. It’s a new source of revenue that can generate millions for a company.
Do you think the CEO and board of Dominos are taking an ethical stand against it, especially when consumers don’t seem to care?
Having partners is useful for funding, there may in fact be semi exclusive offers with those partnerships. As well partnerships can sometimes drive conversions.
Ecommerce is a weird game.
What does this have to do with breaking ad blocking
I know dominos is using/selling the data they get from me having their mobile app
Ahhhhhh
Though they could embed this directly into their site assets though, which shouldn’t be affected by ad blockers, right?
I mean it’s all kind of pointless, I’m just flabbergasted at how shitty dominos appears to be about their digital stuff.