Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Icons – Google Fonts

fonts.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 190 posts

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#171

Post by charcircuit »

hunter2_ wrote: post #60
charcircuit wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

VR versus pancake typically has nothing to do with disabilities. Display versus screen reader does. It's fine to exclude people who can choose to be included, but it's good to avoid exclusion when choice is not part of the equation. 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.

>VR versus pancake typically has nothing to do with disabilities

Keyboard and mouse as inputs leave you essentially physically disabled. Not having a full range of motion is just an much of a disability as being blind.

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#172

Post by Kaze404 »

charcircuit wrote: post #165
Kaze404 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ticket: "Your website isn't very accessible to people using screen readers. Could you improve it with aria tags please?" Response: "It's not my fault you're blind. Ticket closed."

No, my response is that your screen reader sucks. For example a bad screen reader might require that an image of an apple has to be labelled apple for it to work, but a good one could just see that image and recognize that it is a picture of an apple.

Ok, and what does that change? Are you gonna invent that software for those people? If it already exists, are you gonna give them a license? All because you didn't feel like spending half an hour thinking about accessibility.

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#173

Post by tshaddox »

legitster wrote: post #134
systemvoltage wrote: post #102

I am sorry but I am going to be that guy. Iconography has regressed so much, it's all the same optically to me. Designers keep pushing minimalism and line-graphics to "reduce crud" like its some sort of a religion. We can't distinguish icons well. There is no effort put into making them more unique and recognizable. What a horrible cult. Check out these glorious past remnants that we've forgotten about, they were so…

I'm going to disagree. I deal with a lot of legacy interfaces with brightly colored icons and they can be just as confusing if not more confusing than minimalist icons. But I think people have a survivorship bias (we remember the good examples over the bad ones), as well as a familiarity bias (I like the things I grew up using!). I think the benefit of flat, monochrome designs is that they force you to offload meanin…

I also think that "instant universal recognizability" is only one potential reason to use icons, and a fairly limited one. It's also great to have fairly abstract icons in a particular application that are used consistently within that application, so that people can use them as a mnemonic.

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#174

Post by Shadonototro »

wgx wrote: post #20

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.

the problem aren't the fonts, the problem is the developpers who made the websites with shitty performance

this font is quite small

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#175

Post by hunter2_ »

antpls wrote: post #157
hunter2_ wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the image stands alone such that sighted users must parse it, then your logic is correct. But if the image is merely decorative due to adjacent text such that sighted users gloss over the image, aria-hidden affords users of screen readers that exact same efficiency instead of wasting their time. In other words, eyes can skip over decorations without the developer needing to flag them as such, but audio can't auto-…

Wouldn't it make more sense to have everything "hidden" by default and have an explicit "aria-include" ?

All text being skipped unless the author tags it for inclusion doesn't seem like a failsafe default, assuming that excessive information is generally preferred over insufficient information.

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#176

Post by charcircuit »

Kaze404 wrote: post #172
charcircuit wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, my response is that your screen reader sucks. For example a bad screen reader might require that an image of an apple has to be labelled apple for it to work, but a good one could just see that image and recognize that it is a picture of an apple.

Ok, and what does that change? Are you gonna invent that software for those people? If it already exists, are you gonna give them a license? All because you didn't feel like spending half an hour thinking about accessibility.

It's not my job to work on your screen reader. Complaints about its effectiveness should go towards the developers of the screen reader software. If everyone's screen leader software sucks then there is likely a business opportunity for someone to make a better one. Also you are trivializing it by saying half an hour. Even if that was true it would be half an hour for every single website in existence. That doesn't scale. What scales is making a better screen reader.

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#177

Post by sellyme »

legitster wrote: post #134
systemvoltage wrote: post #102

I am sorry but I am going to be that guy. Iconography has regressed so much, it's all the same optically to me. Designers keep pushing minimalism and line-graphics to "reduce crud" like its some sort of a religion. We can't distinguish icons well. There is no effort put into making them more unique and recognizable. What a horrible cult. Check out these glorious past remnants that we've forgotten about, they were so…

I'm going to disagree. I deal with a lot of legacy interfaces with brightly colored icons and they can be just as confusing if not more confusing than minimalist icons. But I think people have a survivorship bias (we remember the good examples over the bad ones), as well as a familiarity bias (I like the things I grew up using!). I think the benefit of flat, monochrome designs is that they force you to offload meanin…

> But I think people have a survivorship bias (we remember the good examples over the bad ones)

Exactly! Survivorship bias is great, we get to only pick the examples that we know were good enough to survive! Why on earth would we want to have a truly random sample that gave us a whole bunch of terrible icons we'll ditch within 3 years?

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#178

Post by eurasiantiger »

mappu wrote: post #141
eurasiantiger wrote: post #16

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.

Fonts can actually contain coloured glyphs now, originally for emoji. Although it does seem like a layering violation.

Good luck recoloring them in CSS :/

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#179

Post by matsemann »

charcircuit wrote: post #163
matsemann wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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 f…

Sure, throw me in jail for not wanting to waste my time developing stuff I have no use for in websites that are freely accessible. If countries want me to develop and support stuff that I don't want to they should pay me for it.

Again, assuming you're a professional that's just part of the job. So you will get paid for it, just include it in the estimates/your quotes. It's not optional. And really, it's not that hard to do..

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#180

Post by Kaze404 »

charcircuit wrote: post #176
Kaze404 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, and what does that change? Are you gonna invent that software for those people? If it already exists, are you gonna give them a license? All because you didn't feel like spending half an hour thinking about accessibility.

It's not my job to work on your screen reader. Complaints about its effectiveness should go towards the developers of the screen reader software. If everyone's screen leader software sucks then there is likely a business opportunity for someone to make a better one. Also you are trivializing it by saying half an hour. Even if that was true it would be half an hour for every single website in existence. That doesn't s…

I'm sorry you see the world this way. I sincerely hope you never have to rely on accessibility tools to use the internet in the future.
Post reply on HN