8 ms·

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.