4 ms·

Are ADA lawsuits not applicable to the web? It seems a financial incentive is the only way to really resolve this.

bjnord 8y ago
They are, although since the ADA dates from 1990, the web isn't mentioned explicitly. It's been up to the courts to decide how it applies. Nevertheless, web-related ADA lawsuits are on the rise: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hotels-ada-compliance-20181111-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hotels-ada-compliance... [disclosure: I work for a company that provides services in this arena]
afarah 8y ago
That would not solve anything, it would create a problem.
- jdsully 8y ago
  It seems to have worked in the physical world. Most places I go at least appear to be accessible.
berbec 8y ago
They are a major thing. There are a small number of law firms.... "heavily" invested in suing ADA non-compliant websites. The run it through a online tool and if there are a certain number of errors, an intern prints out a nasty gram demanding $xx,xxx or see them in court. These guys recently went through all the art galleries in New York City... Alphabetically. [1] 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/arts/design/blind-lawsuits-art-galleries.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/arts/design/blind-lawsuit...
Nadya 8y ago
They are and there have been many rather bullshit drive-by lawsuits in regards to them too. With no leeway to give you time to fix the problem either. Compliance is almost impossible for small teams. You can't rely on a lot of 3rd party code/widgets since many of them are non-compliant so now you require an in-house development team to recode a 3rd party widget to follow WCAG guidelines. Don't forget that you can't post any videos without transcripts! Transcripts cost money and time to create. So now people are simply denied videos altogether. [0] These lawsuits have done far more harm to the public than good. Because they aren't focused on actually helping users, but turning a profit for some lawyer instead. I'm the "go to" person regarding WCAG 2.0 / ADA within my company. I actually despise my job because I don't get to spend time making our websites more accessible to users but instead spend most of my time appeasing lawyers with too much time on their hands. [0] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-berkeley-delete-publicly-available-educational-content https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-...
- asark 8y ago
  > You can't rely on a lot of 3rd party code/widgets since many of them are non-compliant so now you require an in-house development team to recode a 3rd party widget to follow WCAG guidelines. We've gotten a lot of mileage out of going nuts with "UX" and styling on the web. Maybe it's time to stop thinking about whether or not we could, and start thinking about whether or not we should. Of course you gotta get the money folks and the designers on board or you're out of luck. A lawsuit or ten should do the trick. Though, yes, "this is bad give us money" is a place these complaints probably shouldn't be able to start.
  - Nadya 8y ago
    The end result of that is an internet ran by businesses and large corps capable of affording to be on the internet. Ma & Pa shops and small restaurants may not be able to afford to have a website, which could be enough to put them out of business. Additionally I believe that if something can benefit people by simply existing it is better to have that thing than not have it at all if some small percentage of users aren't able to use that thing. For example, the Suicide Prevention Hotline website is not fully adhering to WCAG 2.0. I'd much rather that resource exist at all for those who may need it than to not let it exist because it doesn't adhere to WCAG 2.0 It's also very much accessible enough for actual people - but not quite "free from drive-by lawsuits" territory because it doesn't fully adhere to the guidelines.
- jdsully 8y ago
  > They are and there have been many rather bullshit drive-by lawsuits in regards to them too. With no leeway to give you time to fix the problem either. Its clear these are not just "accidental" mistakes but people ignoring the problem wholesale. Commercial entities have responsibilities under the ADA. Yes it takes extra time and money to do it - so does designing in that ramp next to the stairs. A little goes a long way here. It would be great if even just the alt text fields were filled out. Much easier than property developers have it.
  - Nadya 8y ago

They are, although since the ADA dates from 1990, the web isn't mentioned explicitly. It's been up to the courts to decide how it applies. Nevertheless, web-related ADA lawsuits are on the rise: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hotels-ada-compliance-20181111-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hotels-ada-compliance... [disclosure: I work for a company that provides services in this arena]

afarah 8y ago

That would not solve anything, it would create a problem.

jdsully 8y ago
It seems to have worked in the physical world. Most places I go at least appear to be accessible.

berbec 8y ago

They are a major thing. There are a small number of law firms.... "heavily" invested in suing ADA non-compliant websites. The run it through a online tool and if there are a certain number of errors, an intern prints out a nasty gram demanding $xx,xxx or see them in court. These guys recently went through all the art galleries in New York City... Alphabetically. [1] 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/arts/design/blind-lawsuits-art-galleries.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/arts/design/blind-lawsuit...

Nadya 8y ago

They are and there have been many rather bullshit drive-by lawsuits in regards to them too. With no leeway to give you time to fix the problem either. Compliance is almost impossible for small teams. You can't rely on a lot of 3rd party code/widgets since many of them are non-compliant so now you require an in-house development team to recode a 3rd party widget to follow WCAG guidelines. Don't forget that you can't post any videos without transcripts! Transcripts cost money and time to create. So now people are simply denied videos altogether. [0] These lawsuits have done far more harm to the public than good. Because they aren't focused on actually helping users, but turning a profit for some lawyer instead. I'm the "go to" person regarding WCAG 2.0 / ADA within my company. I actually despise my job because I don't get to spend time making our websites more accessible to users but instead spend most of my time appeasing lawyers with too much time on their hands. [0] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-berkeley-delete-publicly-available-educational-content https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-...

asark 8y ago
> You can't rely on a lot of 3rd party code/widgets since many of them are non-compliant so now you require an in-house development team to recode a 3rd party widget to follow WCAG guidelines. We've gotten a lot of mileage out of going nuts with "UX" and styling on the web. Maybe it's time to stop thinking about whether or not we could, and start thinking about whether or not we should. Of course you gotta get the money folks and the designers on board or you're out of luck. A lawsuit or ten should do the trick. Though, yes, "this is bad give us money" is a place these complaints probably shouldn't be able to start.
- Nadya 8y ago
  The end result of that is an internet ran by businesses and large corps capable of affording to be on the internet. Ma & Pa shops and small restaurants may not be able to afford to have a website, which could be enough to put them out of business. Additionally I believe that if something can benefit people by simply existing it is better to have that thing than not have it at all if some small percentage of users aren't able to use that thing. For example, the Suicide Prevention Hotline website is not fully adhering to WCAG 2.0. I'd much rather that resource exist at all for those who may need it than to not let it exist because it doesn't adhere to WCAG 2.0 It's also very much accessible enough for actual people - but not quite "free from drive-by lawsuits" territory because it doesn't fully adhere to the guidelines.
jdsully 8y ago
> They are and there have been many rather bullshit drive-by lawsuits in regards to them too. With no leeway to give you time to fix the problem either. Its clear these are not just "accidental" mistakes but people ignoring the problem wholesale. Commercial entities have responsibilities under the ADA. Yes it takes extra time and money to do it - so does designing in that ramp next to the stairs. A little goes a long way here. It would be great if even just the alt text fields were filled out. Much easier than property developers have it.
- Nadya 8y ago