In the rather short history of Web accessibility lawsuits and settlements, no one has ever been sued over a specific, failed WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion. Lawsuits always happen over a construct of poor, frustrating and disabling user experiences. It is the accumulation of annoying or downright blocking barriers that push users over the edge of their browsers and into the courts of law. Still, what organizations under litigation expect from their accessibility experts is laser-focused guidance on conformance, which usually results in looking into clear-cut interpretations of potential violation issues only. When simple checklists are being used to cross off potential accessibility failures in order to meet a specific conformance level and not much thought is given to the resulting user experience, organizations often fall into the trap of under estimating the impact of only focusing on what the requirements say. In this class, we will look at different examples, where so-called accessibility issues are being misinterpreted and how these misinterpretations can result in problems down the line for organizations who are under litigation and have to come up with remediation fixes in a very short time frame. Through discussions and lectures, we will look into interpretations of different Success Criteria from WCAG 2.0, to see how we can cut through what constitutes a real violation, or what is simply a best practice - and when we do need to go the extra mile, to ensure that what would usually be a simple annoyance to a user doesn’t unexpectedly turn up into a real barrier that could lead to potential drama. So put on your accessibility game face and join the action!