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

251–260 of 302 posts

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

#251

Post by pxc »

PaulStatezny wrote: post #39
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 vi…

Those survey results probably don't mean what you think they mean. Among blind and visually impaired people, the term 'blind' can include basically anyone who is legally blind— it does not refer exclusively to the totally blind.

My mom has been legally blind for almost two decades now, IIRC. It's only within the past year or two that her computer and phone usage has begun to switch to primarily screen reader-based rather than primarily magnification-based. From then and continuing on to this day, she chooses between the terms 'low vision' and 'blind' (and various others) mainly according to what she thinks the person she's talking to will most easily understand. (Although over the course of time she has gradually shifted toward favoring the word 'blind', both as she becomes more connected to the local blind community and as her vision continues to degrade).

One thing to keep in mind is that going from normal/visual phone usage to a screen reader is like learning to walk all over again (and discovering that some paths are not for you anymore). It's starting over from zero, and it sucks. Going from typical visual usage to jacking up your font sizes is basically free, and using some kind of magnification a fairly natural next step. For people with progressive vision loss, there may be decades where one is 'blind', but it's still not efficient or opportune to drop everything and switch to relying exclusively on a screen reader.

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

#252

Post by JadeNB »

coolliquidcode wrote: post #181
JadeNB wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things like alt text is so time consuming it would be incredibly expensive to label all the images. Facebook has long resorted to using AI descriptions. > Really it shouldn't be up to the developer it should be up to the disabled person to buy tools. Just like someone may need to buy a wheelchair to move around, they should have to buy a specialty browser that handles their limited visibility needs or brail tool in…

It sucks to be disabled and this is why it sucks. People shouldn't be wasting lifetimes of time to so that visually disabled people can be slightly more convenienced to browse the internet or play with an app. Especially with alt-text. Minimal effort is fine. Well structured HTML is all that should be needed. > How can buying a specialty browser solve a problem of a blind person needing alt text for images? If a pict…

> It sucks to be disabled and this is why it sucks. People shouldn't be wasting lifetimes of time to so that visually disabled people can be slightly more convenienced to browse the internet or play with an app.

I think that a big part of why it sucks is that people feel comfortable expressing the idea that working to allow people of all abilities to enjoy the same conveniences is wasting time.

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

#253

Post by nfw2 »

austin-cheney wrote: post #207
nfw2 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not universally true that accessibility efforts always benefit everyone. For example, implementing ARIA markup on HTML only benefits those using assistive technology. If developers don't know how to make web services accessible, it IS expensive because it will take time to train them. Developer time is often a company's biggest expense. Moreover, not every web product is simple to make accessible even by expert…

Accessibility is not always cheap and easy. I am only saying it isn’t more expensive if you know what you are doing. In my 15 year career as a JavaScript developer all the biggest failures were directly attributed to poor training and leadership qualifying low standards. At some point people would do themselves a huge service by admitting they are too lazy/inept to train their staff and they deliver shit as a result.…

If the problem is needing more competent people, that tends to be an expensive problem to solve because competent people generally cost more to hire.

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

#254

Post by linkjuice4all »

mypalmike wrote: post #96
linkjuice4all wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I'm curious... If you settle without remediating, aren't you still open to lawsuits from other plaintiffs?

I don't recall the specifics - but I think the settlement usually included language around remediation or dismissal was pending remediation.

Typically it was just an embarrassing experience for some middle manager, some lost budget, and some extra dev hours to add 'WCAG Compliance' to the QA checklist.

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

#255

Post by hmcq6 »

coolliquidcode wrote: post #245
extra88 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Domino's did not make an effort until they lost in court. They even admitted during the course of the case that the requested fixes would cost like $58,000 to make, far less than the lawyers cost in the case and appeals.

You are arguing they should have been forced to pay 58k for unnecessary site improvements when each place has a phone line that can be called. They did have alt text but it was deemed not good enough. What real value did disabled customers miss out on?

> They did have alt text but it was deemed not good enough.

Did they? Because the suit alleges that they did not have alt text.

> each place has a phone line that can be called.

Ok but what if the person has troubles talking or hearing or dialing the phone?

Accessibility doesn't even take that long. I updated a site I run to be compliant in less than a day. Corporations can afford to meet regulations.

Edit:

According to the lawsuit the phone number was not added too the website until after.

Also from the lawsuit

> But there are substantial reasons to believe that the phone number does not provide the same level of independence and convenience as does the website and the mobile app. In particular, as the district court noted, "callers may experience delays and be placed on hold." Pet. App. 24a. Ambient noise may distract from and interfere with the accurate taking of orders. See p. 8, supra. And giving a credit card number to a live human being over the phone may create a greater risk to privacy than does submitting that information through a secure website. See DCt. Dkt. No. 33 at 15.

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

#256

Post by eviks »

atomicUpdate wrote: post #232
ryandrake wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies do all sorts of (IMO insane) things to their apps that reduce their reach. Ignoring accessibility is just one of them. I remember when I was in the app-writing business, and our devs would be constantly trying to bump up the minimum OS version supported. “See here, it says that only 10% of customer devices are on OS version 10.1 and below. We must bump our minimum version to 10.2 because us developers are t…

> "See here, it says that only 10% of customer devices are on OS version 10.1 and below. We must bump our minimum version to 10.2 because us developers are tired of supporting this old shit and legacy code paths!" This makes sense if that 10% are costing more money than they generate, which seems especially likely since people that are frugal enough to (for example) hang onto an iPhone 7 are also unlikely to spend mu…

Do you have any real estimate of what not breaking old devices cost? With so much effort being wasted on site/app redesigns that degrade user experience (and cut off old devices in the process) it's also easy to imagine that it's not about the costs

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

#257

Post by neonsunset »

fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #244
neonsunset wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re reaching the levels of hello world optimization even the staunchest proponents of top-level statements (write Program.cs python script style) considered impossible.

What about sound types? And I think having dynamically sized arrays in the language rather than standard library is an improvement in general because it removes extra cognitive load. Same for "print()." It just makes the language easier to write. The same way we never really need to pass functions as arguments because we can always pass an object that is guaranteed to have that function defined for it via interfaces.…

What? None of this makes any sense. C# is not Java. It has different syntax and feature set. The print thing is just hilarious however. I have probably heard it only ever from someone who started programming a couple of months ago.

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

#258

Post by bradley13 »

kypro wrote: post #79
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.

I've worked for a couple of large corporations who were sued for accessibility issues. This was about 5-6 years ago though and I was told back then that there was a number of people who are deliberately scouring the internet for websites with accessibility issues so they can sue them for not complying with US accessibility laws. These lawsuits I believe can be fairly costly for large organisations – I know I was give…

This. The problem isn't accessibility or the ADA. The problem is the US tort system and the way it is abused.

If your font is slightly too small or an alt-text is missing, or whatever? A lawsuit should have zero chance of success, which would then eliminate the blackmail game of "settle or we sue".

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

#259

Post by [deleted] »

financypants wrote: post #178
zymhan wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your post has personality, as it is written. Just my unsolicited, non-expert advice: don't make your writing more generic just to appeal to a wider audience.

You won't stop until everybody is reading your blog

[deleted]

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

#260

Post by jakey_bakey »

financypants wrote: post #178
zymhan wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your post has personality, as it is written. Just my unsolicited, non-expert advice: don't make your writing more generic just to appeal to a wider audience.

You won't stop until everybody is reading your blog

HAHAHAHAHA, nice one
Post reply on HN