131–140 of 250 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Exactly, it sort of re-inforces my point that when I was designing that site I didn't really think about it. I don't have to be an accessibility expert to discuss the fact that developers don't tend to create accessible sites!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The Original article seems to mis-quote browser marketshare. They have IE10 listed as 3% of the market and "Other" as 36%? And all the IE's combined for 19% market share? Everything I've seen (except the original article) list the IE's at a combined market share somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-70%., with IE8 still having a dominant 15-20%.
As your font choice and general blog layout seem to indicate, yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen multiple bicyclists almost hit by in-controls cars because they couldn't ride safely on the sidewalks without those ramps. (Yes, riding on sidewalks is technically illegal. There are many places where it's much much safer and there are no pedestrians to bother.)
In most cases you're more likely to be hit by a car if you're riding on the sidewalk. Last numbers I suggest that your risk of being killed by a car is about twice as high when you're on the sidewalk. The reason is simple: Bikes move quickly, and bikes on the sidewalk are much harder for motorists to see than bikes on the street. That makes it extremely difficult - sometimes impossible - for drivers to see or anticip…
I don't agree that accessibility is a training issue and I certainly don't agree that it would take a month to become familiar with accessibility guidelines. Rather, download a screen reader (for Windows I like Windows Eyes), learn to use it, shut off your monitor and spend one hour trying to use the web. That will give you all the context that you need. Once you're armed with this experience, make navigating through…
I have poor vision. This website uses a herd-to-read font and disables pinch-to-zoom (an essential feature) on my iPad.
the irony is palpable
1) We don't cater to IE9, which is at 5.11% according to stat counter. IE9 is a bad choice point for this - it's the first IE that had auto-update. Everyone left. We're catering to IE8+; 8 is currently at 6.5%.
2) You don't count the version; you count the version and all its successors. That is, we're not catering to 8, we're catering to 8+. 8+ is at almost 35% and is still the dominant aggregate browser.
3) Where does 14% come from? This says 6.8%, or roughly half what's claimed, in the same neighborhood as the browsers mentioned: http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/1417-Accessibilit....
4) You can't cater to disabled users. They're not one thing. What you do for the colorblind isn't the same as what you do for the blind, which isn't the same as what you do for people who have specialty control systems, which isn't the same as what you do for micro-screens, which isn't the same as what you do for people who have motor control circumstances, et cetera.
5) The web solution for this is WAI-Aria, which began in mid-2012, and became a candidate recommendation three months ago.
6) Microsoft has been requiring WAI-Aria for store apps since late 2012.
7) Most people have never heard of WAI-Aria.
8) As far as I know, no single group of disabled users reaches 1% of the userbase.
9) Supporting old browsers is way, way easier than supporting disabled users. Old browsers mean installing a shim and fighting a couple bugs, and that level of effort leaves people writing angry blog posts for five years. Supporting disabled users means learning how (there's basically no tutorials, but ample angry blog posts with bad statistics) then finding someone who has the equipment to test it on, then learning that you have to re-order everything on the entire site because the reader software can't be told that the source order isn't the reading order, then adding several properties to every single tag on every single page, then having no way to audit.
10) Many of us /do/ cater to the disabled. Your site has no aria markup at all, is peppered with empty iframes (which will wreak havoc on older readers,) and is covered in images that have no reader equivalents. You are actually substantially less disability friendly than the average webpage.
11) Even people with full sight find a font and color scheme like that very difficult to read.
12) In short, because like you, most small web authors are more comfortable writing about the problem than being part of the solution.
As a side note, designing well for disabilities often translates to better design as well. Those alternate text labels and better layout for screen readers can make your site easier for the googlebot to read. You can find navigation and flow issues. Buttons that are hard to click are harder for everyone to click, even if some can manage. Or those buttons are really hard for everyone on tablets to hit because they are…
This happens in the real world too, aka the sidewalk effect. The cutouts in the sidewalk for wheelchairs are now used by everyone else too for their: strollers, bikes, shopping carts, and anyone else who doesn't want to raise their foot an extra couple of inches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OTOH I've seen pedestrians almost-hit by an out-of-control car that would have been stopped by a proper kerb but instead hit one of those ramps.
I've seen multiple bicyclists almost hit by in-controls cars because they couldn't ride safely on the sidewalks without those ramps. (Yes, riding on sidewalks is technically illegal. There are many places where it's much much safer and there are no pedestrians to bother.)