• XTornado@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    10 months ago

    I am fine with it but I feel they should have alternatives. Some people don 't have a device, connection. Or have issues with using technology for whatever reason, being old, incapacitated, etc.

    • geogle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      Shit cell service, and an inability to easily take in the menu online are my biggest gripes

      • IndefiniteBen@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        If they don’t have a good internet connection available for free for customers with a good mobile website, why would anyone visit and actually struggle through the ordering process?

    • OmegaII@feddit.nl
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      10 months ago

      Then they don’t eat there. I don’t see the problem. Might be the owners problem. But hopefully it was taken into cinsideration. If not, though luck again.

      • iegod@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s not quite how accessibility regulations are structured. Wouldn’t surprise me if there are requirements on this in any given jurisdiction. Perhaps not a ‘thou shalt have printed menus’ but some kind of reasonable accommodation I think isn’t absurd.

      • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think it’s pretty reasonable to require restaurants to spend a little money to print menus, and even a little more to get braille ones. There’s millions of people who might have some difficulty or another using a browser based menu, certainly we can do better than saying “sorry, tough luck.”