4 ms·
Violation of government accessibility requirements. Oh and it's horribly compressed (150k+ IIRC), text stored on a JPEG (PNG is so much better for graphics), no
by zbowling 15y ago
Violation of government accessibility requirements. Oh and it's horribly compressed (150k+ IIRC), text stored on a JPEG (PNG is so much better for graphics), not hosted on a CDN, lacks etags so there is no caching, and the background image of the "seized" text in red is just as bad. Wasting my tax money on massive bandwidth drain to host the page and wastes my bandwidth caps to load it. Makes me angry.
- jimktrains2 15y ago> Violation of government accessibility requirements. I've always wondered if they could be sued for that.
- jrockway 15y agoI'll throw in a few bucks if you want to try.
- jimktrains2 15y agoIANAL and don't have the time to arrange something like this or I would def try. PS: I would throw money someone's way to do this too.
- rhizome 15y agoIt may violate the ADA, but the lack of accessibility only prevents a visitor from benefiting from the DHS's message, not a site that they would otherwise use without trouble (as is done for IRL ADA complaints). Even if someone could get in front of a judge with this, I'm sure the DHS has absolute immunity for stuff like this.
- jimktrains2 15y agoIf they can't see, they can't be told what this image says on the page, the only image on the page. Imagine if there were important information in it or something other than just a warning.
- rhizome 15y agoImagine if there were important information in it or something other than just a warning. Sure, but there isn't. :)
- nicw 15y agoDon't think they'll find anyone willing to contribute design effort. No graphic designer would want to add this page to their Design Portfolio.
- bad_user 15y agoIf I did graphics design, I would have no problem with it -- heck, I would even tell people about it :)