[robin_reala]

Sure.

In the US is the ADA which stipulates “reasonable accomodations” to be made for users with disabilities. You could argue that providing e.g. a phone system as an alternative helps to satisfy this, but it’s debatable, and has been debated backwards and forwards in the US court system.

In Canada, from 2021-01-01 the AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) specifically calls out WCAG 2.0 double-AA (with a few, very minor, changes around closed captioning) as the minimum for both public and private sector businesses.

Israel also has a minimum requirement of WCAG 2.0 double-AA codified into law.

Norway, while not specifically mentioning a standard or guideline, has accessibility requirements interpreted by their regulator to meet WCAG 2.1 double-AA.

And the whole of the EU will gain a minimum requirement of WCAG 2.1 double-AA for the private sector from 2025-06-28 (that’s already the case for the EU public sector). Something to be aware of if you’re purchasing software / white-label systems now.

While it’s a little out of date now, a good starting point is https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/.

[lelandfe]

US FE engineer here. I have worked with major online retailers for accessibility remediation after they were successfully sued for WCAG failures.

The biggest thing, folks, is your navigation. If you run a large site and users can’t control your navigation with a keyboard at minimum, you’re really leaving people out in the cold - and asking for a lawsuit, depending on the industry and your country. I'm looking at you, dropdowns.

Full WCAG compliance is expensive and requires vigilance, but getting your navigation right should be priority 0.

[badsectoracula]

Hoes do all those translate to UI toolkits not having accessibility functionality being illegal though?

It is largely a legalese infodump that makes it very hard to parse, but i skimmed through the EU proposal (most of its requirements being at the annex) and it largely seems to be for websites or for very specific uses where it'd make sense (Check-in stations, ticket stations, ATMs, E-commerce sites, etc). The closest to a more general requirement would be the requirement for operating systems to provide functionality like text-to-speech (it mentions "more than one sensory channel" so i assume that would fit), zooming, etc but the wording on that seems to be about the complete package - so i guess if that proposal passes, a store wouldn't be able to sell, e.g., a computer with Linux and IceWM preinstalled as the only desktop (no text to speech there).

When you wrote that UI toolkits without accessibility functionality being illegal was there anything more clear and specific or is it this just more of a "just in case" scenario?

[robin_reala]

An inaccessible toolkit itself wouldn’t be illegal in the EU, but producing an end-user facing interface under the scope of the EU directive[1] (which as you mentioned is rambling but pretty wide ranging – “consumer terminal equipment with interactive computing capability, used for electronic communications services” could apply to most things that HN people work on) using that inaccessible toolkit would be.

But that’s just the EU. In the AODA[2] for example (which is already law), “barrier” is defined as “anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability, including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, an information or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or a practice” and sets out a process for the development / adoption of standards (the aforementioned WCAG 2.0 double-AA) and binds public and private sector to meet those standards to remove the barriers. Use of an inaccessible toolkit would certainly constitute “a technological barrier”.

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%...

[2] https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05a11

[badsectoracula]

I think even in those the application would matter. For example i don't see how something like an image editor (which was the original application for Gtk, for example, even if nowadays Gtk has some accessibility support) or a specialized tool like [0] would be illegal (i don't know if it has accessibility support but for the sake of argument lets assume it doesn't).

I can see there being an issue with something like a chat program though (i wonder if XChat will now be illegal to sell :-P).

[0] https://shadermap.com/home/

[lelandfe]

Note: this is all specific to the US.

https://equidox.co/blog/robles-v-dominos-pizza-explained-no-...

Domino's was sued by a man who is blind who was unable to order a pizza online.

Unfortunately, requirements for websites to be considered "accessible" in a legal sense are essentially undefined in the US. Here's how the site above summarizes, emphasis theirs:

> Title III of the ADA mandates that all places of public accommodation and their services must not discriminate against those with disabilities. According to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that includes making websites equally accessible for people who use assistive technology.

Lacking precise guidelines, the thinking in the web community generally is that if your site adheres to WCAG 2.0 or higher, there will be little purchase for folks to sue. Adherence to that standard has also been mandated in the past by courts in settlements.

[carapace]

> How do all those translate to UI toolkits not having accessibility functionality being illegal though?

You put up a non-conforming website using one of these UI toolkits, someone sues you (there are lawyers who specialize in this), you lose and have to pay lots of money. And then you still have to make your site conforming.