3 ms·
In the US a common version of this is for ADA laws on government websites. Many(most?) .gov domains aren't compliant. [1] Interestingly, successful lawsuits fo
by ozaark 8y ago
In the US a common version of this is for ADA laws on government websites. Many(most?) .gov domains aren't compliant. [1]
Interestingly, successful lawsuits for private company websites breaching ADA have increased over the past couple of years.
[1] Non-compliant: senate.gov , supremecourt.gov , congress.gov , justice.gov , etc
- tracker1 8y agoWorking on a compliant application currently... the irony, is you can't use the main function of the app without being at least relatively sighted (the app displays scanned documents for confirmation)... but heaven forbid if my color contrast is 2% too little.
- pakitan 8y agoWe're sued right now by a troll law firm for breach of ADA. I'm not even sure there is such thing as "compliant". ADA basically says "well, we're not accessibility experts, just follow WCAG 2.0 and you'll probably be fine". The problem is that while WCAG 2.0 is, IMO, a well designed set of guidelines, it's not meant to be used to assess a site as "compliant" or "non-compliant". This situation is beyond ridiculous.