> I have a zero-tolerance policy for […], with few exceptions
That's not how zero-tolerance works.
That's not how zero-tolerance works.
Complete sentences may make it possible to pretend bad wording is consistent, but that doesn't make it good wording.
They are not the same thing.
Let's say there is a scale from 0 to 10.
If you accept 1-2, that's low tolerance.
If you reject anything above 0, except this particular 2 and this particular 5, that's zero-tolerance with exceptions.
Still a loss for the rest of us who got suckered into reading the last ten or so stupid comments but oh well...
I guess I should clarify that in the rare case I still want to access the content, I still do not engage with the modal dialogs, but instead use a proxy service such as archive.is to present it in an accessible way.
I consider modals to be a gross accessibility issue.
I worked on it pretty seriously for two weeks but got hung up on the problem that my web archiving system was never 100% sure that a page had finished loading (that there would be more significant AJAX calls) so it would set long timeouts and even with a lot of stripping out the junk it was going to be even more awkward than dealing with the junk.
Looking back at it however it looked like an overly ambitious project.
By zero tolerance, I mean to say that I do not engage with the dialogs in any way, e.g. clicking agree, cancel, close, or the area around the dialog if it is blocking the page.
By few exceptions, I mean that I look for an alternative method to access the content rather than disengaging from it entirely.
I am imperfect, so if you were to observe me 24/7, you would probably see me slip up eventually. But this is an ideal I strive for and for the most part am satisfied with the results of pursuing.