4 ms·
> 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 w
by 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 agoThe 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.