How you've twisted the facts...judgement was based on the determination that Winn-Dixie’s website is heavily integrated with the company’s physical store locations, making it subject to the ADA...key phrase: heavily integrated...which was the point of contention. Judgement was based on the applicability of ADA to a company's website, not the scope of how badly inaccessible the website was.
> ...requires you to be expending effort and time and money to screw up. It's not something that you just accidentally do out of ignorance.
Because web design is a static practice that never changes, right? With as much dynamic crap associated with the latest UX trend these days, it's surprising that anything modern conforms to a generalized definition of accessible.
And yes, you really do have to go out of your way to build something a modern screen reader can't handle.
Only from this determination does everything else follow.
Citing the list of issues remaining to be determined from opinion, verdict and order[2]: (2) and (3) are contextually relevant questions iff (1) was judged in the affirmative.
> And yes, you really do have to go out of your way to build something a modern screen reader can't handle.
On this note, I suppose we simply agree to disagree.
[1] http://www.adatitleiii.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/121/2016...
[2] https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/3067htvmz/florida-southern...
And the only way there's a violation for the court to deal with is if the site is inaccessible.
Getting on the wrong side of simple guidelines like WCAG really does require actively user-hostile processes from the dev team, and if that can be shut down via lawsuit, then hooray.