Section 508 and ADA laws are quite real, and there are activists out there literally just looking for websites to sue who do not meet those requirements. You need to balance launch and revenue with the risk that you'll get sued and the cost of the consequences.

I'm not disagreeing with you, BTW... just saying that for the decision to be good business sense you need to look at the full potential impact on the business.

Are they really risks though? Are there any examples of say, YC-stage startups who got sued into oblivion over accessibility?

It just kind of feels like a joke, when almost any webapp in existence is not compliant and there is no enforcement.

It also goes against the hacker ethos that we should be free to build and share without credentialing or licensing.

Imagine if you couldn't Show HN without thinking about accessibility and actually taking on serious legal risk.

> YC-stage startups who got sued into oblivion over accessibility

No, because real people with problems (not lawsuit trolls) don't want your money, they want you to fix your product. Most will reach out before bringing a suit. If a suit is brought, they almost always settle if the company A) fixes the problem and commits to keeping the product accessible and B) pays the costs of the suit.

It's cheaper to fix the problems than to fight the suit, especially for a new business that doesn't have a lot of technical debt or a large corpus of inaccessible content.

> Imagine if you couldn't Show HN without thinking about accessibility and actually taking on serious legal risk.

U.S. accessibility requirements for private entities (vs. government ones) apply to "places of public accommodation." Lawsuit results have been mixed about whether an online operation, especially if it has no corresponding physical operation, count as a "place" (I think they do). Personal sites, projects will not require meeting accessibility requirements any more than your house will be legally required to have a ramp for wheelchair users.

If you're going to worry about legal risks for Show HN projects, worry more about creating privacy and security problems for users.

Not my experience, its mostly lawsuit trolls suing over 1 of the 100 videos on a website not having closed captions.

I'm the CTO of my marketing agency, we've had plenty of our clients get hit with ADA lawsuits for embedding Youtube videos without closed captions.

How does it work on the web? Would developers get an opportunity to fix the issues, or would the company randomly get slapped with a massive fine?

It seems like it would be a good way for a company to suppress competitors to a field, they could trigger these kinds of laws in up-and-coming companies.

It ends up going to the OCR (Office of Civil Rights). They will independently verify whether or not there are problems. If there are, the organization who owns the site will be contacted and made aware of the concerns. They will get an opportunity to correct the problems.

And yes, you certainly could audit your competitors products and force them down this path. I'm not sure that is a winning move, though, as all you are doing is forcing them to build a stronger product.

This isn't true, you just get a lawsuit at your doorstep.

Usually laws like this don't apply until you're a certain size, headcount or revenue. I'm not sure if that's the case with accessibility but usually startups building MVPs can focus on the product and come back to hit compliance once they start growing.

If you don't ship then nobody can access your product. If your product is more expensive than fewer people can access your product.

In the physical world you can't just ignore safety and accessibility requirements because "hey, it's expensive and if I don't open then no one will be able to visit my business at all. Might as well serve some percent of the population." Websites shouldn't be any different.

It depends. Safety... well that's different.

But there are many physical products that can only be used by people without certain disabilities. For instance, cameras, mirrors, light bulbs and paintings require you to be sighted to get any utility from them. Headphones require you to be able to hear. Those might be extreme examples, but there are a huge number of things that you basically get zero utility out of if you don't have typical abilities in relevant areas. Should I not be allowed to sell a bicycle if I can't figure out a way to make it work for people who don't have 4 functioning limbs?

Most web sites can be made accessible simply by making them work normally and reasonably... it's generally the browser's job (and various other things like screenreaders) to make them accessible, assuming the web developer isn't doing something particularly weirdly. Isn't it?

It seems highly inefficient use of resources to have each site have to do a lot of work to support accessibility, especially if the sites are doing basic things like presenting documents. But if I make a web based paint program or charting app, what am I supposed to do for people who don't have sight? Does that even make sense?

I think you should actually read about accessibility requirements.

> Most web sites can be made accessible simply by making them work normally and reasonably... it's generally the browser's job (and various other things like screenreaders) to make them accessible, assuming the web developer isn't doing something particularly weirdly. Isn't it?

It's not the browsers legal responsibility to do so, no. It's the responsibility of the business to do that.

I'm not talking about whose legal responsibility it is, I'm talking about whose responsibility it makes sense for it to be. Anyway, if the browser did nothing to address accessibility, laws would be made to require them to do so.

It makes sense to address it universally, if possible, rather than case by case. Surely you agree that someone who simply puts a document on the web should not have to develop their own screen reader. Or should it just be businesses that are required to do so? That has obvious problems.

Financial access is an accessibility problem too. It makes sense to target the largest demographics by problem of access if you cannot help everyone.

Also, when you have financial access issues, it implies that you have access issues for everything in life, including the basics like medical care.

And that’s the reason the modern world sucks for a lot of people. Imagine living in a world where people don’t design for you because it’s not economically worth it.

Seems like it was far more that way in the pre-modern world.... even a few decades ago.

I'm a Linux user. It sucks but you deal.

Someone who is colourblind can't just switch to better supported eyes.

Some deaf people actually choose to remain deaf rather than use an implant.

I'm not sure how why you think that is a relevant comment.

The general point is that "I don't use a particular OS" is wildly different to "my body does not work that way".

Software generally has high margins. There’s no excuse.

Being paid a lot doesn't necessarily make the job less annoying.

> It seems like in the startup world, accessibility is about the last priority.

Right after security.

At least for SaaS websites, I imagine you're limiting who can buy your software if you don't comply with relevant a11y guidelines - think government, healthcare, and some big companies etc.