[evunveot]

> Would they know how? They wouldn't normally be accustomed to using those tools, right? A sighted person with laryngitis doesn't need to bother with learning text-to-speech for the 2 weeks they don't have their voice because they can just use the website. If blind users have to learn the tools, that's adding an extra burden on them. (And yes blind users have to learn how to use screenreaders, which sighted users don't, but that's a permanent requirement associated with their disability)

That's all true, but I feel like there's a missing "Therefore..." at the end.

> > because not being able to speak English isn't considered a disability under that law.

> That's not what I said. I've added parentheses to my statement so it's easier to parse as a boolean "(blind and (speech impaired or unable to speak the local language))".

I know that's not what you said. It's what I said. I don't see what your second sentence has to do with it.

> But Domino's provides access to their website in multiple languages. So a blind non-English-speaker isn't enjoying the "equal and full enjoyment" of Domino's services that a sighted non-English-speaker would.

Yeah, they got sued because blind people allegedly can't use their website. Language has nothing to do with it.

[triceratops]

> Yeah, they got sued because blind people allegedly can't use their website. Language has nothing to do with it.

The person I was originally responding to was arguing that blind people could simply order on the phone and that was an acceptable substitute for the lack of web accessibility. I was pointing out the reasons that it's not as good. Language absolutely is pertinent here.

> That's all true, but I feel like there's a missing "Therefore..." at the end.

Therefore websites should be accessible. Phone ordering isn't a good enough substitute in these other situations and the blind are placed at a disadvantage compared to the sighted.