4 ms·
The key is actually using a screen reader and better yet having someone with accessibly needs provide feedback. Following guidelines is great but usability is o
by notyourwork 7y ago
The key is actually using a screen reader and better yet having someone with accessibly needs provide feedback. Following guidelines is great but usability is only great when you actually see how someone interacts with your site. Again though, it’s not that hard.
- tyingq 7y agoOn the other hand, there's probably two goals here. Making it work well, and avoiding a lawsuit. I imagine the latter involves a lot more work.
- rhizome 7y agoThere are two goals only if you don't do the first one. It's like saying the two biggest goals in owning a knife: not stabbing people and staying out of prison.
- tyingq 7y agoSurely you don't think I meant something that simplistic. Of course the first goal is what matters. However, pretending there aren't people that will hunt for technicalities is naive.
- freeone3000 7y agoIn my experience, it's a lot LESS work. Fair or not, the people reviewing accessibility standards are likely not disabled, and the mere functioning of a website is enough to pass WCAG 2.0. It doesn't have to work well - all of the bits that make a website nice are at level AAA or are advisory, and the government's claim here is that Level A Sufficient would be enough, it just has to work.
- tyingq 7y agoThe people filing civil lawsuits generally are disabled, since they would be the only ones that could. A civil suit doesn't just get thrown out because you passed WCAG.
- freeone3000 7y agoIt doesn't, but it's evidence in your favor, much like meeting the physical accessibility requirements would be. If there's still a legitimate problem, of course you'd have to address it.
- belltaco 7y agoTypically suits that do that without warnings or asking things to be changed are thrown out immediately. The plaintiff usually has to show that they tried getting it changed through normal channels before filing a lawsuit.
- pakitan 7y agoThe racket goes like this - a lawyer firm, specialized in this type of "work", finds a token blind person and sends you a letter to the tune of "On date such and such, our client visited your site and it wasn't accessible. Based on such and such precedent, we're not required to give you advance notice and can to sue you for $100K. However, we're reasonable people and we're willing to settle out of court for $10K, as long as you promise to fix your site under the supervision of an accessibility expert pointed by us". For small companies, even if you're in the right, the only thing that makes sense is to settle. Going to court is way too risky.
- gabaix 7y agodid you end up settling?
- CathedralBorrow 7y agoAlso, did they end up fixing?
- pakitan 7y agoYes, of course.
- rimliu 7y agoAnd that's where you enter the woods. There is no "the screenreader". There are different screen readers, and each my interpret your site differently.
- couchand 7y agoThe same is true of mainstream browsers. Would you not bother testing in even a single browser just because there are too many options?
- windsurfer 7y agoThe differences between mainstream browsers are like different models of bicycles. The differences between screen readers are like all the varieties of two-wheeled vehicles, from segways to hoverboards to scooters.