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

281–290 of 302 posts

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

#281

Post by [deleted] »

Filligree wrote: post #190
mwcampbell wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The high contrast of font to background requirement is so extreme that most major sites and even ADA related sites fail. Why don't they just use high contrast? Why is readability so unfashionable?

Text contrast multiplies with the monitor contrast, which then multiplies again with eyesight quality. The high contrast requirement is to make it readable for someone with poor eyesight on a low-quality monitor... Which then makes it downright painful for someone with regular eyesight, who sets their monitor to high contrast to improve photo rendering. Grey-on-grey is the only website design that doesn't make me imm…

[deleted]

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

#282

Post by neurostimulant »

ryandrake wrote: post #195
madeofpalk wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know - I'm always amused at how companies will try all sorts of growth hacks to eke out an extra 1% of DAU or whatever, but won't prioritise building products for human beings.

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…

Except companies that produce apps and games for small kids. They would go out of their way to support old devices released more than 10 years ago because their customers (small kids) mostly use devices handed down from their parents.

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

#283

Post by tomrod »

rmbyrro wrote: post #274
tomrod wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, despite your justifications being cost-driven. A business is supposed to deliver. Accessibility is part of that. Much like we wouldn't accept rotten food at a restaurant in whole or in part, we shouldn't be okay with leaving out accessibility to at least some standard. If a restaurant can't deliver and serves rotten food, we should be okay with it going out of business. This holds for software companies that…

Your comparison is flawed, in my opinion. What you're saying is equivalent to a restaurant owner who doesn't serve meals adequate to allergic people is a jerk and should go out of business.

I disagree from a conceptual/philosophical perspective (broken accessibility is bad delivery, not just occasional mishap/edge case for some small set of customer) and from a practical perspective. It's not an occasional customer, it's a huge chunk of the marketplace. Here are some stats: https://themeisle.com/blog/web-accessibility-statistics/

I don't think software shop owners that are ignorant of or ignoring accessibility are necessarily jerks. Before being informed, they are transgressive to good sense; after being informed, immoral. How they act directly towards someone is what defines whether they are a jerk or not, and that, in my mind, is not really connected to the conversation.

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

#284

Post by coolliquidcode »

hmcq6 wrote: post #255
coolliquidcode wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Look at way back machine

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

#285

Post by coolliquidcode »

hmcq6 wrote: post #255
coolliquidcode wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

This is pure nonsense. So what if you may experience delays or be put on hold. Just because something exists doesn't mean you're obligated to provide it.

"credit card number to a live human being over the phone may create a greater risk to privacy" is absurd, it's the way people been taking credit cards from inception to very recently, either it's not good enough and should be banned all together or it's an acceptable means of charging a card. Plus there is protection from the CC company.

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

#286

Post by infotainment »

acdha wrote: post #277
seanwilson wrote: post #53

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…

I agree that there are a lot of other things to learn but accessibility is a legal and moral imperative, not just a nice to have feature. I think “lazy” might not be the right word since many developers don’t even know that they’re cutting corners, so perhaps it’s better to use “negligence” and realize that our field culturally encourages it rather than just blaming individuals.

In the end, software accessibility represents an edge case affecting a tiny fraction of users.

You can argue it’s morally wrong to not support that edge case, but I do understand why it wouldn’t be a priority for most without legal prodding.

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

#287

Post by TheRealPomax »

LoganDark wrote: post #240
TheRealPomax wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that "they don't need text controls because most people have glasses, so their vision isn't bad enough" is one of the reasons projects start thinking about a11y too late.

That may be true, but isn't what I said. I think you're misrepresenting the actual percentage of people who actually need to use text controls in saying that about half the population doesn't have perfect vision. You may notice that those are two different things. It's like using the percentage of people without perfect control of their legs as a proxy for how many people actually need to use a wheelchair. Yes wheelc…

No, it's like arguing that all people who are no longer in their prime need walk-on ramps or lifts in addition to stairs.

Which they do.

And accessibility-oriented architecture already knows that, and has been operating on that principle for decades. So in the exact same way: because half the planet needs glasses, no matter for how "trivial to correct" or actually bad their eyes are, your UI needs controls that allow people with any level of visual disability to compensate beyond what their glasses might correct for, if the medium your UI is presented in does not offer (adequate, because that's not a given) controls already.

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

#288

Post by zooq_ai »

callalex wrote: post #100
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.

Are you really going to use the word “useless” here?

Yes, if you offer something useful, people will jump through hoops to get it.

Remember all the original Download/Porn sites. Those had a11y issues even for regular users, yet it was popular. a11y matters only for useless websites because they can't afford for users to leave

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

#289

Post by acdha »

infotainment wrote: post #286
acdha wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there are a lot of other things to learn but accessibility is a legal and moral imperative, not just a nice to have feature. I think “lazy” might not be the right word since many developers don’t even know that they’re cutting corners, so perhaps it’s better to use “negligence” and realize that our field culturally encourages it rather than just blaming individuals.

In the end, software accessibility represents an edge case affecting a tiny fraction of users. You can argue it’s morally wrong to not support that edge case, but I do understand why it wouldn’t be a priority for most without legal prodding.

It’s more than a tiny fraction, but yes, that’s why the laws are so important: the cost of not having them is high to specific people, and businesses may not see that directly because someone who finds your product hard to use is likely to just stop without telling you so it’s hard to tell how many affected people there actually are. Having a simple legal requirement short circuits all of those discussions.

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

#290

Post by LoganDark »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #287
LoganDark wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be true, but isn't what I said. I think you're misrepresenting the actual percentage of people who actually need to use text controls in saying that about half the population doesn't have perfect vision. You may notice that those are two different things. It's like using the percentage of people without perfect control of their legs as a proxy for how many people actually need to use a wheelchair. Yes wheelc…

No, it's like arguing that all people who are no longer in their prime need walk-on ramps or lifts in addition to stairs. Which they do . And accessibility-oriented architecture already knows that, and has been operating on that principle for decades. So in the exact same way: because half the planet needs glasses, no matter for how "trivial to correct" or actually bad their eyes are , your UI needs controls that all…

> No, it's like arguing that all people who are no longer in their prime need walk-on ramps or lifts in addition to stairs.

That's basically exactly what I said yeah. Which isn't correct because plenty of people who are not in their prime still do not need those things. It doesn't help with making your point.

Instead I'd cite statistics on how many people actually use these accessibility features, and not some far more general group of "how many people are not perfect".

Also, in case it isn't clear, I'm not arguing against accessibility features at all, I just think this part of your argument was a bit misleading.

Post reply on HN