3 ms·
In 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
by freeone3000 7y ago
In 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.