達美樂披薩惹上了打官司，一直打到美國最高法院

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Domino’s Pizza Monday after a federal appellate court ruled that a blind customer can sue the chain under the Americans with Disabilities Act after he couldn’t fully use its website through screen-reading software.

美國最高法院週一駁回了達美樂披薩的上訴，此前一家聯邦上訴法院裁定，一名盲人顧客可以根據《美國殘疾人法》對這一連鎖店提起訴訟，因爲他無法通過屏幕閱讀軟件充分利用達美樂披薩的網站。

Domino’s had asked the Supreme Court to rule that the ADA didn’t apply to websites and apps, arguing the 1990 law predated the modern internet and that there were no firm rules businesses could comply with to make their online assets accessible.

達美樂披薩請求最高法院裁定《美國殘疾人法》不適用於網站和應用程序，辯稱這個1990年的法律早於現代互聯網，而且公司沒有具體法律可遵守來使消費者能訪問其網上信息。

“Each defendant must figure out how to make every image on its website or app sufficiently accessible to the blind, how to render every video or audio file sufficiently available to the deaf, or how to provide content to those who cannot operate a computer or mobile phone,” the pizza chain had argued. “Businesses and nonprofits must maintain that accessibility as their online content constantly changes and grows through links to other content.”

這家披薩連鎖店分辨道：“每個被告都必須弄清如何使其網站或應用程序上的圖片能被盲人有效利用，如何將每個視頻或音頻文件充分呈現給聾的人，或者如何爲那些不會操作電腦或手機的人提供信息。企業和非營利組織必須保持這種可訪問性，因爲他們網站上的內容通過與其他內容鏈接不斷變化增長。”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that since Domino’s is a place of public accommodation, it’s required under the law to provide “auxiliary aids and services” making visual materials accessible to visually impaired customers. The court found that applies to the chain’s website and app, even though they’re often used outside of Domino’s restaurants.

第九巡迴上訴法院已做出裁決，既然達美樂披薩爲公衆服務，就需要依照法律提供“輔助設備及服務”，使視障客戶能夠使用視覺材料。法院發現這適用於該連鎖店的網站和應用程序，即使這些東西人們經常不是在達美樂店內使用的。

The ruling may cause businesses to take website accessibility concerns more seriously.

這一裁決可能會導致企業更加重視網站的可訪問性問題。

Screen-reading software users often say modern websites and apps don’t have enough built-in cues to let the software translate what’s happening on-screen to audio output in a meaningful way.

屏幕閱讀軟件用戶經常說，現代網站和應用程序沒有足夠的內置提示，無法讓軟件以有意義的方式將屏幕顯示的內容轉換爲音頻輸出。

But business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had expressed concern that the appeals court ruling, coupled with uncertainty about exactly what it means to make a website accessible, could lead to an onslaught of lawsuits over website access that could even lead some companies to reduce their online presences.

但美國商會等商業團體擔心上訴法院的裁決再加上不確定網站可訪問性的準確定義，會導致大量關於網站訪問的訴訟，甚至還會導致一些公司減少線上服務。