Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?

fionatg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 250 posts

Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?

#91

Post by 6cxs2hd6 »

DanBC wrote: post #54
Nanzikambe wrote: post #13

IE9 isn't a disability? Colour me shocked Apologies in advance for the poor (attempt at) humour, I don't mean to trivialise a real issue, only to ridicule IE9 users. In all seriousness it's due to the complexity of catering for certain disabilities each of which require entirely different technical solutions, and some of which depending upon OS and various devices can be seamlessly provided for. I would say a better…

If you've seen tenders for websites that ignore usability for disabled users you've seen companies that are, depending where they are, breaking or close to breaking the law. Obviously you can't name and shame, but a blog post saying "I have seen X number of website tenders and none of them include any mention of usability for disabled users" would get some notice.

Speaking of name and shame. People sometimes bring a lot of intensity to bear on a single statement or campaign contribution. It would be great to see similar intensity for acts of omission. If someone leads an organization that hasn't made even a weak effort at improving accessibility or diversity, that deserves some gnashing of teeth.

I think what accessibility and diversity both have in common is that the problem can seem overwhelming. Progress needs to happen step by step, organization by organization. We should encourage and compliment people who are taking even small but meaningful steps -- and "shame" the ones who are making excuses for not even trying.

Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?

#92

Post by pjc50 »

leorocky wrote: post #44
joblessjunkie wrote: post #32

I 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…

HN is tiny and unreadable in default Android chrome.

Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?

#93

Post by peterwwillis »

> So why do we think it is perfectly acceptable to spend time ensuring that our websites work in IE9, but not that you can navigate them with a keyboard?

Lack of empathy, basically. There's very little financial or technical incentive to supporting disabled users. People just don't give enough of a shit to help people who have a hard time using technology. Sadly it's going to take a strong push from an advocacy group for disabled users to be taken seriously, just like they were necessary to get ramps and rails as required for all businesses.

Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?

#94

Post by nailer »

mikeash wrote: post #83
nailer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jackhammering street concerns and installing rubber bits with a texture that said to help the blind.

Isn't the cost essentially zero if you just install them when you're doing other work?

Depends on the price of the rubber bits or the moulds for the concrete ones.

Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?

#95

Post by djur »

nailer wrote: post #72
mikeash wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which "these programmes" are you referring to?

Jackhammering street concerns and installing rubber bits with a texture that said to help the blind.

Could you provide a link? I've never seen rubber bits added to a sidewalk before.

Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?

#97

Post by joesmo »

shutupalready wrote: post #73
leorocky wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

joblessjunkie means the original article's site. Pinch-to-zoom works fine on HackerNews on an iPad, and the HackerNews font is nothing unusual. Regarding HN being too wide, why don't you narrow your browser window? Personally, I like the fact the traditional web design in which HN adjusts the line to screen width rather than imposing a width.

Oftentimes, narrowing HN below 1280px is still not enough as the content then scrolls sideways, so there is a very good argument for putting a width on content that doesn't adjust to the window size properly.

Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?

#98

Post by jl6 »

Are there stats on whether having a disability makes you more or less likely to make a purchase in a given product category? E.g. does having a disability correlate with not having a job, which correlates with having less disposable income, which correlates with making fewer purchases?

Or does a disability correlate with going out less which might correlate with spending more time and money online?

Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?

#99

Post by legacy2013 »

I've been wondering about this for a while. For my thesis project in college, my class created a web app for a school for the blind and visually impaired. We were greenhorns when it came to creating a production ready system, but we were able to meet the standards for usability by implementing them while the project was going, not as an after thought.

Re: 3% use IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former?

#100

Post by autokad »

"3% browse with IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former? So why do we think it is perfectly acceptable to spend time ensuring that our websites work in IE9, but not that you can navigate them with a keyboard?"

if she is so concerned about making websites accessible for those with impairments, why in the heck did she choose that font?!?

2nd, you are really twisting things. first you take ALL people with disabilities (term used generously), and use that to justify websites having to comply with an issue that effects less than 1% of the population. the vast majority of disabilities falls under visual impairment, and all websites should strive to make them readable.

Then you do the complete opposite to IE. you disregard all the IE versions and focus on just one. in short, you lumped all disabilities to validate your point about one specific part of it and bifurcated the IE market to make it seem smaller to prove your point.

Post reply on HN