5 ms·

I work in government and this is a major issue right now. We've basically pulled any and all content that wasn't required to be online from our website until it

I work in government and this is a major issue right now. We've basically pulled any and all content that wasn't required to be online from our website until it has been "certified accessible" by a third party. It's not the government I work for, but a nearby sheriff's office took their website completely offline and replaced it with a simple text based site[1]. The cost to make their old site accessible and the liability of leaving it up was too high. That said and as others have mentioned in their comments, all of these institutions know that accessibility is mandated by law and they've just kind of ignored it. [1] https://www.alachuasheriff.org https://www.alachuasheriff.org

inferiorhuman 7y ago
That's not a "simple text based site", it's simply a landing page. A "simple text based site" would probably be easier for everyone involved.
- iwasakabukiman 7y ago
  Is a landing page not a subset of simple text based site?
  - wtallis 7y ago
    No. You don't make a building accessible by putting a sign on the front saying "wheelchairs not welcome", and you shouldn't make a web site "accessible" by gutting it of all content and functionality that isn't already accidentally accessible. This is at best a case of malicious compliance.
    - iwasakabukiman 7y ago
      I never said it was accessible. I said it was a text based site, which it is. I feel like you're misunderstanding on purpose just to argue. I also never said that it was okay for them to do that. But it meets the minimum requirements of the law and is legally compliant (or so their lawyer says). In fact, my point was that they should not do that. They did it to avoid getting sued. Now any functionality they could have offered, such as online crime reporting or crime stat lookups, are not even options.
      - wtallis 7y ago
        It's rather uselessly pedantic to claim that a single page placeholder qualifies as a simple text-based web site for the purposes of a discussion like this.
    - kyle-rb 7y ago
      >You don't make a building accessible by putting a sign on the front saying "wheelchairs not welcome" It's more like instead of adding ramps, just shutting down the actual building and conducting business in the parking lot.
    - defen 7y ago
      > You don't make a building accessible by putting a sign on the front saying "wheelchairs not welcome" That's a bad analogy. The linked website is equally usable for everyone.
      - wtallis 7y ago
        Unusable by everyone is not the same as usable by everyone.
        defen 7y ago
        They're complying with the letter of the law. They don't have the resources to do it right, and if they don't, they get sued. I don't see how you can be pro-ADA and not ok with this outcome.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

inferiorhuman 7y ago

That's not a "simple text based site", it's simply a landing page. A "simple text based site" would probably be easier for everyone involved.

iwasakabukiman 7y ago
Is a landing page not a subset of simple text based site?
- wtallis 7y ago
  No. You don't make a building accessible by putting a sign on the front saying "wheelchairs not welcome", and you shouldn't make a web site "accessible" by gutting it of all content and functionality that isn't already accidentally accessible. This is at best a case of malicious compliance.
  - iwasakabukiman 7y ago
    I never said it was accessible. I said it was a text based site, which it is. I feel like you're misunderstanding on purpose just to argue. I also never said that it was okay for them to do that. But it meets the minimum requirements of the law and is legally compliant (or so their lawyer says). In fact, my point was that they should not do that. They did it to avoid getting sued. Now any functionality they could have offered, such as online crime reporting or crime stat lookups, are not even options.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      It's rather uselessly pedantic to claim that a single page placeholder qualifies as a simple text-based web site for the purposes of a discussion like this.
  - kyle-rb 7y ago
    >You don't make a building accessible by putting a sign on the front saying "wheelchairs not welcome" It's more like instead of adding ramps, just shutting down the actual building and conducting business in the parking lot.
  - defen 7y ago
    > You don't make a building accessible by putting a sign on the front saying "wheelchairs not welcome" That's a bad analogy. The linked website is equally usable for everyone.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      Unusable by everyone is not the same as usable by everyone.
      - defen 7y ago
        They're complying with the letter of the law. They don't have the resources to do it right, and if they don't, they get sued. I don't see how you can be pro-ADA and not ok with this outcome.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]