Comments on: Getting ready for ADA website regulations

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:19:27 +0000

It would be pretty funny if pop-up and pop-over ads ended up being banned because they weren’t ADA compliant 😀

*********

Time-outs are a security feature; it’ll also be funny to see website operators caught in the Catch-22 of being required to provide timeouts to meet legal requirements for security, but being forbidden to include timeouts to meet legal requirements for access! I guess they can just set up a revolving window where they have timeouts until they get sued, then they pay a fine and switch to “no timeouts” until they get sued again, then switch back…

**********

Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch would seem to provide an important precedent. I have a feeling that we’ll find it’s acceptable to have a website that looks how you want it, so long as you provide an alternate “ADA version”.

By: Fox2!

Fox2! — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 22:01:44 +0000

In reply to ras. Plus rule-makers will be the "go-to" experts on the new regulations that they wrote when they leave government service under the new Trump administration. Just looking out for the long game. /snark

By: ras

ras — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:31:04 +0000

Will US users be blocked from accessing offshore websites that don’t meet ADA regs?

Can a website owner simply refuse to offer content unless a browser such as, for ex, Chrome is used that can read the site out loud? Would that suffice?

Will youtube videos without captioning and voiceover be banned?

This is all about power tripping and lawsuit cash.

By: Rxc

Rxc — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 02:05:21 +0000

Cecil,

Why isn’t the New York Times required to print copies of the newspaper in braille? Why isn’t every printed catalog required to have oral explanations of the photos? Should every food magazine include scratch and sniff cards for every recipe?

I think we have gone too far with ADA compliance for Web sites.

By: cecil

cecil — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:44:06 +0000

In that case, why bother with a web site at all? Why not simply provide a number to a call center in india for everyone… In some cases I’m looking a specific product, in others I’m “shopping”, and in yet others finding a similar product but different because of features/price/etc changes my original intent. Besides, I prefer not to have to depend on sighted assistance where there is a reasonable alternative. Besides, should I really take up Mr. Olson’s time typing in my comments when I am perfectly capable of doing it myself? That way I can even take ownership of any typos.

By: John Rohan

John Rohan — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:08:19 +0000

For blind users, wouldn’t it suffice to simply include a phone number to do your order by telephone?

By: Cecil

Cecil — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 12:45:52 +0000

Actually keyboard control is for blind users too. 😀 After all, it’s not like we can see where to click. I realize that you believe no regulation is good and thereby any regulation is bad… But somewhere between 1920 and todays filing mills lies a balance that provides persons like me the ability to shop online. Simple is best, that’s what to keep in mind when building an accessible web site. And to me, spoken word text is very redundant since anyone that needs it will be running a screen reader that provides speech already… There are even free options such as nvda. Parts of the federal government try to accomplish this via a regular version and an accessible version once again with the accessible version simplified. If you have spoken instructions insure you also have a text version and make your timers long and easily extended for those with mobility impairments and alt tags for your pictures. Some of it is just obvious good web design… Some of it is counteracting poor web design (fancy web sites earn the developers more money because they take longer to build and support)…
The law should recognize that reasonable has never meant perfect. Police/prosecutors get a good faith exception, how about one for businesses?