re: Sued for Being Inaccessible VIEW POST


what are ADA requirements of "accessible" website? Does it have specific definition?


I don't know if the ADA specifically calls out websites and guidelines for them.

However, the specific cases it covers that matter here are mobility impairments, blindness, and deafness (most of the rest of the disabilities it covers would not realistically impact a user's ability to use a website in a way that the site could be designed to mitigate). So provided the website can be used without needing a pointing device, works correctly with a screen reader, is properly readable, and doesn't rely on sounds as indicators in place of other indicators, you should be fine. Dominos pretty blatantly fails the first two parts (keyboard browsing and screen reader support) last I checked.


The ADA doesn't call out any specific requirements regarding websites. In fact, it doesn't mention websites at all. The road to getting websites considered as covered by the ADA has been rough and complicated, and courts disagree a lot. I wrote a post about it, if you're interested.

While there haven't been any legally enshrined standards or requirements, courts have recommended following WCAG 2.0 AA standards as a part of reparations, so that's the closest thing we've got at the moment.

Your post looks fantastic, Ben. I'll have a read.


There are definitely laws about it. Will try to find them.


Here's a post: section508.gov/blog/do-section-508.... Federal, state, and local government sites must be accessible. (These are US laws, btw.)


Canada springs to mind.

Code of Conduct Report abuse