You're implying the the only benefactors of that actions were the people suing. That's not the case. They're accessibility standards for a reason. They're the minimum required to not make an impaired person's life hell. And we should all care about that.
In this case yes, because clearly if the goal is accessibility, then a company shouldn't face legal action unless they refuse when asked. Like in the DOJ examples in this comment section.
Any and every good cause will attract a bunch of vultures, scammers and scavengers, including accessibility issues. But I'm not going to believe those who say that any company which isn't up to date on this will "get sued to oblivion". Not without examples that prove it.
With that said, I'm a strong supporter of Internet accessibility because there are no down-sides to it. It is essential to the people who need it, and at the same time it improves the experience of those who don't.
Comments
Sounds like they were taken to the cleaners by grifters.
You're implying the the only benefactors of that actions were the people suing. That's not the case. They're accessibility standards for a reason. They're the minimum required to not make an impaired person's life hell. And we should all care about that.
In this case yes, because clearly if the goal is accessibility, then a company shouldn't face legal action unless they refuse when asked. Like in the DOJ examples in this comment section.
Any and every good cause will attract a bunch of vultures, scammers and scavengers, including accessibility issues. But I'm not going to believe those who say that any company which isn't up to date on this will "get sued to oblivion". Not without examples that prove it.
With that said, I'm a strong supporter of Internet accessibility because there are no down-sides to it. It is essential to the people who need it, and at the same time it improves the experience of those who don't.