3
\$\begingroup\$

Can this question regarding FCC Accessibility Options For Disabled Question be reworded such that it doesn't violate our "no specific legal advice" rule?

If not, is there a related useful question we could post to address at least some of the concerns in the developer community regarding the recent exemption expiration?

I reworded the initial title of the question to make it more of a question (as opposed to a statement of disbelief). Personally, I find the question body to still be a little to reactive, but didn't want to overstep with edits. Since the question is deemed off-topic anyway, maybe a more extensive edit would help.

In particular, the question addresses an editorialized news article about the topic & ask "is this article serious?" Would focusing on that aspect of the original question help?

Having reviewed some of the IGDA video in which Karen Peltz Strauss of the FCC discusses what the CVAA means for games, my take is that the article is viewing things somewhat out of context.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ FWIW I think the original question has been deleted... so it makes it difficult to discuss if you're not seeing any "traction" on the meta. \$\endgroup\$ – Rab Jan 17 at 19:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .