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

291–300 of 302 posts

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

#291

Post by squigz »

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.

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

I'm curious: What fraction do you think it is? And what fraction do you think it should be for it to be taken more seriously?

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

#292

Post by squigz »

sircastor wrote: post #57

For the last 12 years of his life, my father was in an electric wheelchair as a result of a stroke. Prior to that, I was vaguely aware of ADA compliance - basically because there were posted signs everywhere about parking spaces and restroom stalls. It was only after seeing the ease with which he could navigate the world in spite of his chair that I appreciated how important that law was, because I also saw so many t…

> As developers, I would say we're second only (maybe) to government in the ability to make the world accessible

This isn't something I've really considered, but it's both very true and very important. Thank you

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

#293

Post by freedomben »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #275
freedomben wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that they are serious about privacy, though I'm not sure it means the same thing to them that it does to me. To me. Privacy includes not collecting data that isn't strictly needed to provide the feature. At their scale, perhaps they could reasonably argue that they need all the data about you in order to provide their service, so my standards don't necessarily indict them as reckless with data, but I do worry…

That's always been a basic philosophy of mine: "If I don't need it, I don't collect it."[0] It's surprising (to me) that this has actually caused working partners to get peeved at me. They want to occasionally do things, like see when people originally signed up (for example, we keep last activity, but not original inception. Last activity is important for doing things like culling cruft, but there's really no use in…

Agreed, I wish more people thought like us! Hopefully as advertising fades, more people will start trying to differentiate on privacy.

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

#294

Post by infotainment »

squigz wrote: post #291
infotainment wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> In the end, software accessibility represents an edge case affecting a tiny fraction of users. I'm curious: What fraction do you think it is? And what fraction do you think it should be for it to be taken more seriously?

To get into exact numbers, it starts to depend on what exactly is meant by "accessibility". For simplicity's sake, let's take supporting screen reading software. What % of the population uses a screenreader? If we assume that every blind user uses one, then the slice is about 2.4%.

According to CanIUse, that's a similar percentage to the share of users who use browsers that don't support Flexbox. Have you used Flexbox recently? If so, you've excluded a similar slice of your potential user base.

And, just like with ignoring flexbox, you can of course code around this. I've actually written SPAs with screen reader support, and it's a pain. Advocates will tell you that if you just follow the WAI-ARIA standard, it'll work seamlessly! But no -- in practice, each screen reader is like a mini-IE6; they all deviate from the standards in strange and unpredictable ways.

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

#295

Post by squigz »

infotainment wrote: post #294
squigz wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the end, software accessibility represents an edge case affecting a tiny fraction of users. I'm curious: What fraction do you think it is? And what fraction do you think it should be for it to be taken more seriously?

To get into exact numbers, it starts to depend on what exactly is meant by "accessibility". For simplicity's sake, let's take supporting screen reading software. What % of the population uses a screenreader? If we assume that every blind user uses one, then the slice is about 2.4%. According to CanIUse, that's a similar percentage to the share of users who use browsers that don't support Flexbox. Have you used Flexbo…

> To get into exact numbers, it starts to depend on what exactly is meant by "accessibility". For simplicity's sake, let's take supporting screen reading software. What % of the population uses a screenreader? If we assume that every blind user uses one, then the slice is about 2.4%.

Ignoring the fact that this alone represents a small slice of a larger pie, 2.4% still doesn't seem insignificant to me - that's nearly 8 million people in America alone. In any case, that answers my first question - now how much higher would that number need to be for it to be significant to you?

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

#297

Post by kriops »

zymhan wrote: post #138
kriops wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what world is cost not a good argument? In fact, assume cost is not a good argument – then why should it even be legal to compile programs that aren’t universally accessible? It’s always beneficial, and just a matter of cost after all. Or are you perhaps being completely one-sided and unreasonable?

You're shoving the strawman down the slippery slope. That is not an honest/genuine question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

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

#298

Post by kriops »

freeone3000 wrote: post #153
kriops wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what world is cost not a good argument? In fact, assume cost is not a good argument – then why should it even be legal to compile programs that aren’t universally accessible? It’s always beneficial, and just a matter of cost after all. Or are you perhaps being completely one-sided and unreasonable?

“Cost is not a good argument [to not do it]” is the actual line taken with the ADA for public accommodations (which includes most private businesses). There is a reasonable accommodation rule as to how an accessibility function may be implemented, but not if , and the rule scales with the resources of the provider. The result of which is, in the USA, a person in a wheelchair can enter nearly every business, use many…

ADA unfortunately doesn't have the authority to decide what constitutes a good argument or not. That being said, they do have the authority to enforce rules that exist in spite of the excellent arguments against them.

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

#299

Post by infotainment »

squigz wrote: post #295
infotainment wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get into exact numbers, it starts to depend on what exactly is meant by "accessibility". For simplicity's sake, let's take supporting screen reading software. What % of the population uses a screenreader? If we assume that every blind user uses one, then the slice is about 2.4%. According to CanIUse, that's a similar percentage to the share of users who use browsers that don't support Flexbox. Have you used Flexbo…

> To get into exact numbers, it starts to depend on what exactly is meant by "accessibility". For simplicity's sake, let's take supporting screen reading software. What % of the population uses a screenreader? If we assume that every blind user uses one, then the slice is about 2.4%. Ignoring the fact that this alone represents a small slice of a larger pie, 2.4% still doesn't seem insignificant to me - that's nearly…

What percentage was it when everyone collectively decided to stop supporting IE6? 20%?

To me it’s less of an absolute percentage and more of a function of how much extra effort needs to go into it, and whether the usability of the rest of the product needs to suffer. I’ve seen potentially useful features nixed because they can’t be made fully compatible with JAWS, which seems silly to me.

Post reply on HN