261–270 of 302 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s fair; I might have been a little gung-ho with this introductory flavour text
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have one backend and two frontends, one of which is simplified and all-about-the-data. I daresay there's the possibility that it's easier to create two websites than it is to make one website do two things.
You might have heard of this thing called "responsive web design," (RWD) it's pretty popular. RWD is all about it not being better to make two websites (in that case, "mobile" vs. "desktop") instead of one.
So just like we have desktop and mobile views, I'm just proposing one more view where you also get to reuse some of your components, and where you get to pushback on stuff like animations, rich interactions, or novelties.
Nice practical article. Accessibility is really important, but one of my pet peeves is when people call developers lazy for not making apps accessible by default. There really is a lot of concepts to learn, conflicting priorities, and tools to get familiar with, on top of making the business case to do it. Most developers and designers I've worked aren't that familiar with WCAG rules either. By the way, the blue on y…
Most developers and designers are unfamiliar with a major portion of their jobs. That says quite a bit about professionalism in the software development field.
Using spans with event listeners instead of anchor tags is my biggest pet peeve of incompetent frontend engineers. It’s like they go out of their way to take something that they get for free and then spend time and effort to break it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the web isn't semantic enough; I mean, when considering the use case of reading documents, we don't even have a table of contents element.
The vast majority of web content is published on sites that want people to use the content in their extremely curated walled garden. Making it easy to mash up content and integrate it with other sites is the exact opposite of what's happening on Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, et al.
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…
I suspect that stuff like accessibility and minimum OS version are not independent of the profitability of a customer, so it's not necessarily insane. For example, I'd suspect that people who stay on old iPhone's are less likely to spend money on apps. But it's a small, very unfounded suspicion. I'd be curious to see if anything works out though in how stuff like that lines up.
I'm thinking specifically of a 3rd party camera app, or maybe one of these modern 3D mapping apps that uses LIDAR to model a room. These apps can (and should!) continue to work on the hardware they were developed for, even if the author bumps the minimum version past what is supported. If the app author builds in reliances on a web api that expects an up-to-date companion app, that was/is shortsighted and should be discouraged.
Is it really that hard to type the word "accessibility" that we need to come up with a silly shorthand version of it?
Unless of course you're just experimenting and it seamlessly turns into a serious thing by accident, that is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 ra…
Screen readers are convenient if you want to do anything while reading (I listen to at least view articles per week that way. I'll even admit to reading HN comments with screen reader. Surprisingly accessible).
It's almost always a mixed usage: one minute users use a feature, and the next minute they are fine without it. But those features are very nice to have
Asking for a friend…