4 ms·
I'm not so sure that "solving" accessibility at the browser level would eliminate those kinds of lawsuits. It might be able to be argued that their "client" use
by joemi 2y ago
I'm not so sure that "solving" accessibility at the browser level would eliminate those kinds of lawsuits. It might be able to be argued that their "client" uses a different browser that doesn't include those accessibility features, and the website in question (that relies on the browsers fixing accessibility) isn't ADA compliant in that case.
- zamadatix 2y agoI don't know how realistic the approach in general is but "This site only works in ${SpecificBrowser}" or "Your browser does not support ${'Standard'}" banner refusals have yet to result in a business getting sued for not displaying properly in an arbitrary browser that isn't supported.
- joemi 2y agoI think the reason behind that is simple: In my experience, there are orders of magnitude more not-entirely-ADA-compliant websites than there are sites with banners such as the ones you mentioned. But yeah, I don't know if the site-isn't-compliant-in-certain-browsers-equals-discrimination argument would succeed or not. But I bet the people whose income dries as a result of browser-based-compliance up would definitely try that tactic.
- zamadatix 2y agoAn order of magnitude difference should explain an order of magnitude difference, not a complete lack of a single example.
- joemi 2y agoI disagree. If there are orders (orders with an 's', meaning more than one order) of magnitude more easy targets, why would any lawyer go after a rarer and harder target? That makes no logical/financial sense.