I hate the font choice of this article.
Same here, I thought she picked the font on purpose for this article, but her entire site uses awful unreadable fonts, colours, etc.
3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?
41–50 of 250 posts
Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?
#42Show me a virtual machine that I can test with, that puts me in the shoes of a user w/ a disability, and I'll develop with accessibility in mind. But the inability to replicate the experience in full, I think , inhibits catering to that demographic.
Yes, outdated browsers is the devil that developers know.
We hackers are frequently solution driven, with a heavy focus on tools. This quickly tailspins into goals focused on incremental changes (load faster, show more info, integrate with this other thing) instead of stepping back and looking at the larger picture (who are my users and what do they want to do?)
Fighting for 3 hours to get your graph to load properly on IE7/8/9 is silly if a table displays the information more clearly and is more accessible.
Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?
#43Well to be honest I can test my code in IE9 to see if it works. But I have no idea how a disabled person is experiencing my website, I do put all the "alt" attributes etc...but it's hard to imagine it.
Yes, that's a real issue. I've had to add JAWS Screen Reader support to an app, and even after you shell out for the thousand dollar license, it's very difficult for a casual user to use it in the same way that an actual blind user does. Ideally you test with an actual impaired user, but they have real jobs and don't want to spend all their time testing your apps.
There's a gap in the market for usability testing. This would mean that things are not just validated against specs but checked in real world use.
There are probably many groups already doing this stuff. Perhaps they just need better organisation or SEO?
Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?
#44I have poor vision. This website uses a herd-to-read font and disables pinch-to-zoom (an essential feature) on my iPad.
This website is even difficult to read on a regular desktop browser (too wide, downvoted comments increasingly impossible to read causing eye strain). I recommend using your own content script with Chrome. This may not help on your iPad but on Android you can use Firefox with your own userscript. It's the only way I can tolerate it.
It would probably take a competent someone a few hours to fix the readability issues of this site but they just never get around to it.
Edit:
Here's a link to what all comments look like for me, even if they're downvoted:
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/v5zcn9n4vg4m3cn/2014-06-1...
I also disabled scores and voting because I dislike that stuff.
This is the home page:
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/sicqor50smsl4hx/2014-06-1...
Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?
#45Because IE9 is the first browser by Microsoft that supports standards sort of reliable like more than 70% of the other browsers out in the wild. So we support it because doesn't take much effort to support it. The choice IE9 or better is because of the quality of that browser, not because we care a lot about the actual marketshare.
Furthermore I always try to optimize the "dry" HTML and use semantic HTML not because of the blind and disabled but because I like my documents be read by non-humans that apparently are blind and deaf and have bad JavaScript support in their browsers to boot.
Don't do it for the disabled. Do it for the blind and deaf unstoppable corporate robots.
Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?
#46I am guessing that 14% = color blind + users with cataract + various other visual impairments.
You usually can't have a design that makes all of them happy at once.
For example, high contrast UI themes often leave large white areas on the screen that users with glaucoma find blinding, but other users like a lot.
Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?
#47I have poor vision. This website uses a herd-to-read font and disables pinch-to-zoom (an essential feature) on my iPad.
I completely agree.
I wouldn't consider this an impairment, but my eyesight is changing (it is getting harder for me to work on a screen when I'm wearing glasses). This font is very hard to read!!
Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?
#48I have poor vision. This website uses a herd-to-read font and disables pinch-to-zoom (an essential feature) on my iPad.
To be fair, there is a large disclaimer:
> I'd like to start this post with a disclaimer: I don't know much about creating accessible websites.
Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?
#49I hate the font choice of this article.
I think its a love/hate thing with my site theme. I've had a lot of comments that it looks fantastic. I think I'll have to increase the font size at least.
Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?
#50Probably because those 3% are homogeneous, while the 9% decompose into lots and lots of categories, all with specific needs, and all much smaller than 9%.
...although you can do a damn good job addressing most of them with a few simple things: -Write good, semantic HTML, and use alt tags correctly -Don't overwrite browser defaults for scrolling, tabbing, etc (even if it's "hot design") -Don't rely purely on color to convey information -Use ARIA attributes where you can if you're building an application Some harder stuff that is really still worth it: -Send your media o…
A terrible example of relying on colour includes the braille at some Melbourne train stations[1]. It appears that someone directly translated the phrase "Press green button" rather than using left or right.
[1] http://wongm.com/2014/06/asking-vision-impaired-to-push-gree...