Webchat ADA Compliance

[Jeffrey55]

We have had the website chat running on our website - we really like it. However, we were recently sued in federal court because our website is not ADA compliant. These law suits are increasing in frequency in the USA. We have completely remade our website - but 3CX webchat is not ADA compliant. Meaning it cannot be read by screen readers for the blind. We cannot use 3CX chat on our new website until the issues are fixed. It is as simple as adding some ARIA labels and tab stops into the HTML on the interface.

 

[Evolute IT]

We have had the website chat running on our website - we really like it. However, we were recently sued in federal court because our website is not ADA compliant. These law suits are increasing in frequency in the USA. We have completely remade our website - but 3CX webchat is not ADA compliant. Meaning it cannot be read by screen readers for the blind. We cannot use 3CX chat on our new website until the issues are fixed. It is as simple as adding some ARIA labels and tab stops into the HTML on the interface.

Interesting that the plugin doesn't have those.

But the court is sueing for accessibility issues? What in the actual f***.

 

[cobaltit]

Scummy lawyers. It happens a lot. Several cities have had multiple restaurants or other establishments sued by the same person. They just go down the street and look for any ADA issue, no matter how minor and file suit. But that's the first time I've heard it happening for a website.

 

[SteveITS]

Domino's Pizza was one of the higher profile cases from several years ago, but there have been others. I found this just now:
"Under Ninth Circuit precedent, web-only businesses are not covered by the ADA. However, websites that have a nexus to a physical place of public accommodation are covered."
(for overseas forum members, ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act)

 

[Evolute IT]

Domino's Pizza was one of the higher profile cases from several years ago, but there have been others. I found this just now:
"Under Ninth Circuit precedent, web-only businesses are not covered by the ADA. However, websites that have a nexus to a physical place of public accommodation are covered."
(for overseas forum members, ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act)

Hmm. Interesting.

Sounds like US has laws made exactly to piss people off lol "web only is okay but web+physical it's not". Shouldn't it be the other way around? Lol

 

[SteveITS]

When it came out 10 or so years ago I think it only applied to physical access ("it's not possible to enter the building") and the courts have interpreted it to cover some online activities, as in "it's not possible to order a pizza" (and if you look it up the person was on hold for like 45 minutes or something when they called, and tried multiple times).

 

[cobaltit]

See, I don't understand the purpose of that. I mean if they don't answer the phone or you are on hold for 45 minutes, just take your business elsewhere. One of my favorite lunch spots went online order only through some service that marked the food up like 20%. I still just called in my order like normal. But when they stopped answering the phone so I just stopped going there. No disability, just voting with my dollars as it were. I mean surely pizza isn't an essential service?