I don’t really use facebook anymore so couldn’t care less; but so happened to log in today to change my password and saw this on my front page.
I don’t really use facebook anymore so couldn’t care less; but so happened to log in today to change my password and saw this on my front page.
Even static PNG ads are purpose engineered to grab your attention. People with attention disorders like ADHD and autism don’t have as much attention to give, and when it’s gone we’re debilitated. We need to start considering cognitohazards a legally prosecutable form of violence.
Could attention grabbing dark-features be considered a violation of the ADA?
Which part of it, specifically?
Edit: No, the ADA word not apply. My point was that you should understand the ADA a bit better and what it covers. Accessing a building open to the public, not facing discrimination in employment, and accommodations in education environments are examples of things it covers. I’m willing to be proven wrong, but don’t just guess or generalize. Please try and understand the topic a bit more as it’s a very important piece of legislation that makes a big difference in a lot of lives and treating it lightly dilutes that in a similar fashion to emotional support alligators vs trained service animals.
Did you really just compare accommodations for ADHD to “emotional support alligators?”
Here is a case establishing precedent that ADHD is a disability under the ADA.
Here is another
Here is the DOJs website which lists case precedent for the requirement of Title III entities (private businesses open to the public) to have accessible websites).
I am not a lawyer, but there is precedent for ADHD to be covered under the ADA and precedent that it (meaning the ADA) applies to websites for private businesses.
Edit: ADHD fits the definition of a disability as defined by Sec. 12102 of the ADA, specifically:
Edit 2: a lawyer could argue that adblocking is an assistive technology for people with ADHD. If a person is looking at a tutorial at work and is inundated with ads that effect their performance at work that they can not block using an adblocker, that is denying a person with a disability as (defined by Sec. 12102 of the ADA) the full and equal (to a person who is neurotypical and can more easily not get distracted) use of a title III entities service.
Thanks for taking it seriously, that’s what I was looking for.
I’m also not a lawyer, but I do have a disability covered by the ADA. I understand that ADHD is a recognized disability. That’s not the specifics I was looking for.
That being said, the ADA doesn’t define how to make a website accessible and that typically falls to the WCAG, which is not specifically mentioned in the ADA (though neither is ADHD, those cases you mentioned confirmed it is covered). The best things I can find than might cover the specifics of ads are maybe section 2.2.2 or 2.2.4 or 2.4.1 of the WCAG (the first and last are level A, the middle AAA, with the standard recommendation being AA.). How would you apply those (or others you think are more appropriate to ad blocking) given that the guidelines are for service providers and ad blocking is usually done client-side. Examples for 2.4.1 given by W3C just seem to specify a way to move past things like ads via a link.
Also, some interesting other things:
This mentions the following and cites the case on their site:
I’m not sure if that’s changed since 2019 or not. California has more specific legislation that covers that, though.
I’m all for ad blocking and accessable websites, I just don’t think the ADA covers ad blocking through the WCAG.
Probably under WCAG Principle 4: “Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.” If we’re treating ad blocking as an assistive technology, purposely attempting to break an assistive technology would run counter to that principle, much in the same way that purposefully breaking a screen reader would (although, it should go with out saying, purposefully breaking screen readability is much worse).
I’m wondering if legal action is something that could be done on a state by state basis starting with California (which conveniently is where Google is headquartered) or if the case could be made that Youtube is used to stream live events and those events should count as a physical nexus under the ADA.
I’m assuming that addictive ui designs fuck with people with ADHD disproportionally. Since ADHD is considered a disability, could things like infinite scroll that can’t be turned off (for example) be considered an ADA violation?
A violation of which part of the ADA? Can you point an a specific part of the law that would cover it?
That was the question posed, yes.
And remains unanswered. The ADA is real law with real text; it doesn’t just mean whatever someone wants it to. So I’m asking, in the text freely available at https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/, where is the part that would apply in this case. There’s even other parts of that site that break things down in laymen’s terms. If the person doesn’t understand the ADA, the opportunity to learn a little about what it does and does not cover is available.
Please see my response above which addresses your points using case law.
deleted by creator