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

Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

jacobbartlett.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 302 posts

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#31

Post by toast0 »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #2

Why have we settled upon annotating accessibility options onto a visual-first, generally high-precision/high-touch-density medium? Wouldn't it be better to just have a "low vision" version of the app, a "low touch accuracy" version of the app, etc? Then you could provide the accessibility-minded users with something customized to their needs, instead of trying to shoehorn accessibility onto a layout that might have n…

Separate but equal isn't equal, and in the US, the ADA requires reasonable accommodation. It's not reasonable to require a second, separate app to cater to people with low vision/low dexterity, and chances are it's not going to have equal functionality (how many separate apps have equal functionality). It's better to require platforms to make accommodation a core feature (which they have largely done!) and require developers to use the accommodations.

The ADA has a private right of action which means that there's distributed effort to find out what's a reasonable accommodation and also to drag businesses into compliance. There's plusses and minuses with this approach, of course.

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#32

Post by zer00eyz »

The very community who needs this, is inclined to ask first sue second.

The ADA exists and is a powerful law. If you are willing to put in the work, generally you're going to get a pass.

I wrote a bunch of accessibility guides (with a lawyer looking over my shoulder) around 2000 for a F500. I have since worked with blind users to add accessibility to apps. If someone is asking, and you can help them do it. You will have a massive advocate for what ever it is your doing!

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#33

Post by jakey_bakey »

jtriangle wrote: post #18

>1 in 6 people think your app is broken >16% of people have some kind of accessibility requirement 16% is 4 in 25 people, also no guarantee you'll be able to accommodate their specific accessibility requirement, depending on the app, and depending on the requirement. That's not to say the app shouldn't be accessible, more that, you should think about when you spend the money to implement things like this, and how tha…

I hope that this article can do some small work in changing that perception!

My apologies for the math inaccuracy is in the mail.

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#34

Post by awkward »

mikece wrote: post #5

What is the real liability for a scenario like this? Is there any grace period when a new app or startup becomes far more successful far sooner than expected? I imagine A11Y isn't a massive concern when it's not certain an idea will even work; outside of California I can't imagine being legally skewered if, once you attain unexpected success, you devote A11Y resources to address this issue.

You're liable under the ADA everywhere in the US. Florida and New York are the big federal courts where people bring these cases. If it's found that you have created a barrier to accessing services, you can be sued.

The US doesn't really have any regulatory apparatus for disability access - ADA liability is how it gets handled. The legal test is murky, the amount you're liable for is murky, and thats generally considered ok, because it will make you fix your shit (legal term).

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#35

Post by nsxwolf »

jnovek wrote: post #30
jtriangle wrote: post #18

>1 in 6 people think your app is broken >16% of people have some kind of accessibility requirement 16% is 4 in 25 people, also no guarantee you'll be able to accommodate their specific accessibility requirement, depending on the app, and depending on the requirement. That's not to say the app shouldn't be accessible, more that, you should think about when you spend the money to implement things like this, and how tha…

As a person who uses accessibility features on his devices, this attitude is why we depend on regulation to ensure that we (disabled people) can do stuff. No company implements accessibility features out of the kindness of their heart.

If I'm putting out a free app as a single developer, I don't have the time or money to do everything. If it becomes popular, I can use metrics to improve the accessibility situation.

If government regulations are going to insist I have to put that investment in day 1, I'll just take up badminton or something.

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#36

Post by linkjuice4all »

jakey_bakey wrote: post #12
mikece wrote: post #5

What is the real liability for a scenario like this? Is there any grace period when a new app or startup becomes far more successful far sooner than expected? I imagine A11Y isn't a massive concern when it's not certain an idea will even work; outside of California I can't imagine being legally skewered if, once you attain unexpected success, you devote A11Y resources to address this issue.

It’s generally less of a legal liability and more of a reputation thing; as you grow you will get more and more users telling you off. See Wordle for an easy example. Plus, its not that hard to do correctly, so the “we’re a startup on a critical burn rate” stops working as an excuse rather early

While it's generally a good idea to make your app/site accessible to all users and user agents - the trouble usually comes when you're big enough to get sued.

In my previous life at an ad agency we had a number of clients getting pursued by accessibility lawyers and firms. These were typically nothing more than shakedowns for some insignificant settlement (IANAL and my agency didn't do the actual implementation so it was typically up to the client to sort out - but having a lawyer on hand should be one of the first things you take care of once you start making or accepting large amounts of money.

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#37

Post by bee_rider »

zooq_ai wrote: post #23

Your App is successful because you didn't spend time on useless things like a11y, i18n during the p-m-f stage. If you look at every successful product in history, they didn't focus on a11y or i18n right from the bat. Now, that it is successful, you can think about it and spend resources.

It seems like quite an indictment of the tech sector to say that success happens because accessibility is ignored.

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#38

Post by huqedato »

jakey_bakey wrote: post #13
huqedato wrote: post #9

I would never agree with this statement of the author: "You won’t stop until everybody is using your app." Why ? All the apps I ever build (or participate in their development) where targeted to the fit the most, without sacrificing the business requirements or other important/critical aspects of the app. Otherwise will end-up with an unusable product.

That’s fair; I might have been a little gung-ho with this introductory flavour text

Moreover, the target "audience" of an app is always specified before the design phase, in the Business Requirements Document and such and it's a defining element for the development. I've read/wrote hundreds of such documents in my career, yet I've never seen one that sets its target audience as 'everybody'.

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#39

Post by PaulStatezny »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #2

Why have we settled upon annotating accessibility options onto a visual-first, generally high-precision/high-touch-density medium? Wouldn't it be better to just have a "low vision" version of the app, a "low touch accuracy" version of the app, etc? Then you could provide the accessibility-minded users with something customized to their needs, instead of trying to shoehorn accessibility onto a layout that might have n…

> Wouldn't it be better to just have a "low vision" version of the app, a "low touch accuracy" version of the app, etc?

I find your comment interesting because it speaks to users who can see, just not well. When I think of web accessibility, I (mostly) think of users who are entirely blind. While it turns out:

~80% of screen reader users are blind. The other ~20% may be partially vision impaired, or sometimes not visually impaired at all (but use it due to things like dyslexia). [1]

~2.4% of Americans are visually impaired and use (or could benefit from) a screen reader. [2]

A "low vision" / "low touch accuracy" version of an app would likely be serving less than 0.5% (20% of 2.4%, see above) of your userbase. (As opposed to simply supporting screen readers in the "regular" version of the app.) Doesn't seem like a priority to optimize for 0.5% of your userbase when you're just trying to vet an unproven idea.

[1] https://www.tempertemper.net/blog/not-all-screen-reader-user...

[2] https://nfb.org/resources/blindness-statistics

Post reply on HN