Comments on: ADA: two gleams on a dark horizon

By: cecil

cecil — Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:57:44 +0000

closed captioning is for the deaf, not the blind.
Yes, I am quite aware of who section 508 covers. The arguement was noone knows how to make an web accessibility standard, and that is proven false by the fact that it has been done.

By: MattS

MattS — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:46:18 +0000

In reply to cecil. Section 508 is exclusively about Federal government websites. It has precisely squat to do with accessibility standards for the ADA and/or websites that do not belong to Federal agencies. The courts should stay out of web accessibility unless/until ADA web accessibility standards are explicitly adopted by Congress and/or the DOJ..

By: Amy Alkon

Amy Alkon — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 04:42:36 +0000

UC Berkeley removed more than 20,000 free online videos to comply with the ADA — in lieu of spending a fortune adding closed captioning for the blind. So…instead of access for some, there’s access for none. Yay, huh?

By: cecil

cecil — Thu, 10 Jan 2019 16:02:16 +0000

yet audio description exists and doesn’t seem to flounder on autographed balls. It is also specifically in regulations and there isn’t even a standard for it.
It’s amazing that there are automated tools that can determine wcag 2.0 a/aa/aaa compliance but people have problems…
Section 508 also had a web standard, prior to embracing wcag 2.0 with the 2017 change.
It may be computer science, but it’s not rocket science… 😀
Hurrah for the good faith attempt exception…
I will ask though, what other law precludes lawyer fees from violaters decades after passage and it taking effect? Just to satisfy my own curiosity…