51–60 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a web developer, it literally is your only job to make a website that is usable by people.
By which people? I think thats up to the developer to decide.
2. Obviously mostly yes, but in hn people just assume that you're a somewhat good person who wouldn't knowingly restraint internet access to people with disabilities
I see they promote the ligature approach: face where the font is expected to ligate the characters 'f', 'a', 'c', 'e' into a single glyph. This can be problematic on the web, as it means that if a user doesn't get your webfont for any reason (download failed, browser settings that disable webfonts, accessibility options that override fonts for clarity, etc) the entire word will appear in a fallback font, often totall…
I deem the ligature approach bad because it encourages leaving something in the document and accessibility tree that shouldn’t be there, and most commonly in a non-semantic way (e.g. a send button might end up showing something like “paper airplane”, which is terrible, or with this specific font, “Learn more →” might become “Learn more arrow_right_alt”), or with semantics that you’ll definitely break at some point (e.g. report_problem is , but if you use that for an alert icon it’ll mislead anyone that ends up reading report_problem; in short, any new semantics you desire for an icon, you need to create a new ligature for it if the user can possibly ever be exposed to it).
I have Google Fonts blocked in uBlock Origin now, and it's really helped pages load quicker and feel more snappy. I added these lines to uBlock: fonts.gstatic.com fonts.googleapis.com Occasionally some icons break on a few sites, but mostly it's plain sailing.
Is it supposed to be added to "My filters" tab in settings?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t care since the icon font approach is technically inferior to SVG icons: it’s monochrome only, whereas SVG supports colors and transparency. Icon fonts also suffer from a plethora of rendering issues across platforms because fonts are usually rendered with speedy display of long text in mind. It’s strange Google would invest in a years-old kludge tech.
Well, it's a good thing it's under Apache 2.0, then. Maybe someone will convert/trace them as SVGs and sublicense them...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>However, in cases where the icon appears stand-alone, it needs to contain a human-understandable text that explains its meaning. Why? It's the screen reader's job to inform users of what's on their screens. It's not my job to give descriptions to things. >The CDNs are used to track your users. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
As a web developer, it literally is your only job to make a website that is usable by people.
Similarly, if I make a VR game I am not going to design it in a way that makes creating a pancake version of the game easier to use. If someone does create a pancake mod for the game, they should not complain about how weird the controls are or how they can only use one hand. They should take those issues up with the pancake mom developer and not with me. If people find it hard to use my website through a screen reader then they should complain to the screen reader developer to improve it. It's not my fault if there software sucks at what it is trying to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a web developer, it literally is your only job to make a website that is usable by people.
By which people? I think thats up to the developer to decide.
But you have to remember the initial goal of why the Internet started as open and what was the initial goal, to make all information accessible to everyone, that's why accessibility standards were there since the beginning.
That was the entire goal of the web, to be open and accessible to EVERYONE.
But if you want to go full head on capitalism and argue it doesn't matter for business, accessibility is literally search engine optimization, which is great for business. Googlebot is blind and doesn't use a mouse to surf the web.
From any perspective Accessibility is a requirements for any website or web application. Of course, nobody can force developers to make websites accessible.
Wait, yeah they can:
* https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-dominos-pizza/u...
SVGs have excellent browser support, and decent CMS support. You can enable them in Wordpress for example with a little tinkering. If you want to make your site faster (and I hope you do), then definitely consider SVGs.
Use SVGs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a web developer, it literally is your only job to make a website that is usable by people.
I design websites that are to be used with primarily desktop screens. If you want to use an unsupported configuration such as a tiny screen or with no screen then it is not my fault if it does not work well. Similarly, if I make a VR game I am not going to design it in a way that makes creating a pancake version of the game easier to use. If someone does create a pancake mod for the game, they should not complain abo…
In lots of countries you are obliged to make the site accessible for what you call "unsupported configurations". E.g screen readers, heavily zoomed sites etc. So yes, it will be your fault, and you are liable for what you deliver. If you're a professional web developer, this should be known.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a web developer, it literally is your only job to make a website that is usable by people.
I design websites that are to be used with primarily desktop screens. If you want to use an unsupported configuration such as a tiny screen or with no screen then it is not my fault if it does not work well. Similarly, if I make a VR game I am not going to design it in a way that makes creating a pancake version of the game easier to use. If someone does create a pancake mod for the game, they should not complain abo…
If you're talking about building something that couldn't possibly be of any use to a blind person, that's one thing, but most websites do not fall into that category.