The foundational law has been around for over 25 years. It doesn't require anything of your personal website anymore than it would require your personal home to

The foundational law has been around for over 25 years. It doesn't require anything of your personal website anymore than it would require your personal home to have wheelchair ramps. > What if the scope were broadened so that all websites required content compatibility modes for color blindness or spectrum sensitivity? The law already requires reasonable measures to provide access to people with disabilities. If a business website's colors prevents a customer from using the site, they could already make it a legal matter. But that doesn't happen often, it's much easier for everyone for a customer to contact the business, explain the problem, and for the business to make a change that corrects the problem (more likely, some number of customers explain and eventually something is done). But standards and expectations do change over time, what's considered reasonable partially depends on technical possibilities, their general availability, and cost. It's reasonable to expect web sites to work with screen readers because they're readily available on almost all the computers people use; if screen readers didn't exist, it would not be reasonable to expect web sites to provide a purely aural interface for the vision impaired. > the judge found that it would be “irrational to conclude [that] places of public accommodation are limited to actual physical structures.”[1] That's quite an interesting interpretation. It's an interpretation that makes sense. The purpose of the law is to ensure people with disabilities have access to goods and services, it matters not whether such access involves concrete, paper, or ones and zeros.