> being so badly inaccessible that you can get a court judgment over it
How you've twisted the facts...judgement was based on the determination that Winn-Dixie’s website is heavily integrated with the company’s physical store locations, making it subject to the ADA...key phrase: heavily integrated...which was the point of contention. Judgement was based on the applicability of ADA to a company's website, not the scope of how badly inaccessible the website was.
> ...requires you to be expending effort and time and money to screw up. It's not something that you just accidentally do out of ignorance.
Because web design is a static practice that never changes, right? With as much dynamic crap associated with the latest UX trend these days, it's surprising that anything modern conforms to a generalized definition of accessible.
In order to get an ADA complaint to succeed, the website has to be inaccessible. Getting the "heavily integrated" ruling wouldn't get a judgment against an accessible site.
And yes, you really do have to go out of your way to build something a modern screen reader can't handle.
From the defendant's motion for judgement[1]: The viability of Gil's claim hangs on the single legal determination: whether Winn-Dixie's website is a place of public accommodation that is subject to the ADA.
Only from this determination does everything else follow.
Citing the list of issues remaining to be determined from opinion, verdict and order[2]: (2) and (3) are contextually relevant questions iff (1) was judged in the affirmative.
> And yes, you really do have to go out of your way to build something a modern screen reader can't handle.
On this note, I suppose we simply agree to disagree.
How you've twisted the facts...judgement was based on the determination that Winn-Dixie’s website is heavily integrated with the company’s physical store locations, making it subject to the ADA...key phrase: heavily integrated...which was the point of contention. Judgement was based on the applicability of ADA to a company's website, not the scope of how badly inaccessible the website was.
> ...requires you to be expending effort and time and money to screw up. It's not something that you just accidentally do out of ignorance.
Because web design is a static practice that never changes, right? With as much dynamic crap associated with the latest UX trend these days, it's surprising that anything modern conforms to a generalized definition of accessible.