@tek Now that we’re talking about this: I’m sure online...

Tek say vote's posts Post Back to profile

@tek Now that we’re talking about this: I’m sure online ads deployed in certain ways (at minimum) make websites less accessible for people with severe dyslexia, motor issues, vision problems, and certain cognitive impairments.

Although this gets tricky because only public sector websites are covered by Section 508 of the ADA which mandates they be accessible for people with many types of disabilities. Section 508 does not cover private sector/corporate websites.

Like 4 June at 21:41 | Wall-to-wall | Open on twit.social

3 comments

Tek say vote

@MisuseCase I've heard people strongly insist that public-facing websites count under the ADA. I don't have a legal background to have an opinion on this, though.

4 June at 22:16 | Open on freeradical.zone

salarua

@tek @MisuseCase public-facing websites definitely count; Domino's got sued over lack of screen reader accessibility under the ADA in 2019 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/07/dominos-supreme-court.html

5 June at 2:05 | Open on sunny.garden

Jack-Frostodon

@MisuseCase @tek Can confirm this as a screen-reader user. Many accessibility violations, to name but a few:
Random focus jumps.
Abus of Aria live announcements interrupting the reading flow, I.E. video countdown timers.
And about those, while autoplaying video ads have *mostly* been nurphed by the browsers themselves, they can still start playing while muted and display an obtrusive countdown timer which, for a screen reader, often interrupts what is currently being read.

5 June at 1:22 | Open on mastodon.social