1M homepages scanned, and 95% failed basic accessibility checks
webaim.orghttps://www.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/ (for those of us from non-default countries please modify as apply)
Why is it that you can get people to take the law seriously when it comes to ensuring there's a wheelchair ramp for a new building, but not for a comparatively simpler and cheaper thing like a website that a screen reader can use?
I know that laws are slow to change and the changers of laws mostly treat computers with bewilderment and suspicion. I know that only thirty years ago the web really was the wild west whereas there have been building codes for thousands of years.
What I don't understand is how there seems to be neither voluntary compliance not significant enforcement.
> state and local governments and businesses open to the public
Not all businesses are covered under this law, so it doesn't really make sense that an online equivalent would cover all websites. Not to mention private property.
(Quick edit, rewrote to make the meaning I intended clearer)
Good point. If you look at the Title 3 cases further down that page you'll see that they do have a relatively broad interpretation of "open to the public", e.g. an online test-prep provider and an online grocery-delivery site. It isn't really clear to me who's included under that category, but it's certainly a significant proportion of popular websites.
Would it apply to a personal website run by a human with no profit motive if it's "open to the public"? That would be very nasty.
I'm all for accessibility and all my sites can be easily read by screen readers and nvaigated by the blind/etc. But if this law means violent force can be used against me if I make a website that is not accessible it would be terrrible.
Is your personal website a business?
It is not "comparatively simpler." For starters, sighted people usually do not know how to use a screen reader or how blind people navigate web pages.
This would be drastically different pre-2010 before everything became a javascript application. Back then the majority of web sites and their pages actually contained text for readers to read. Nowadays everything is just unreadable javascript code that might execute and produce accessible text if all the stars are aligned.
The web as a javascript application delivery system is the worst thing that has happened for accessibility in the last 30 years. But it sure does make it cheaper for companies/institutions to develop in teams and run. And they can even monetize the user this way.
> Back then the majority of web sites and their pages actually contained text for readers to read.
Did they though?
I remember when sites would heavily leverage Flash, Shockwave, Java Applets, Image Maps, etc.
The reality is that the web started as a document system but immediately got pulled in the direction of being a multimedia delivery platform and has continued in the direction for 30 years.
If anything the tools for accessibility are better than they ever were but are always going to be trailing behind because users and creators want to push the medium further and it takes time to figure out how to translate those new features in an accessibility setting.
I remember relying on slices in photoshop + tables to build out complex layouts. There was a lot of hidden content in images.
> heavily leverage Flash, Shockwave, Java Applets, Image Maps, etc.
For navigation. Full Flash/Shockwave/Java sites for the content were very rare. The text itself was still text in the HTML. It might not have been perfect but at least you had something for the screen reader to read. Modern sites are just blank pages of nothing.
Looking forward to AI assistant reformats websites into plain reading mode text.
Which is perfectly fine.
Why?
In reality accessibility is going to be solved by the OS, browser, and browser plugins.
False. Accessibility will be obviated by ai.
That makes sense. Have your horrid website be parsed by an AI that outputs boring HTML for screen readers.