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

181–190 of 250 posts

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

#181

Post by pbz »

judk wrote: post #144
shutupalready wrote: post #73

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.

HN doesn't reflow/wrap text to window size on Android Chrome or Firefox. Only the pre-KitKat "Browser" works on HN.

Opera kept that feature, it works.

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

#182

Post by Isofarro »

nailer wrote: post #53
speg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of skaters and kids on scooters and have become injured thanks to the those rubber stoppers. You can't rely on them if you're disabled, because they're not on every corner. I've also read that it's cheaper to give disabled people a full time minder than to run these programmes. Solutions that start with 'let's change the world' never, ever work. Let's fix screenreaders. And help the blind by analysing what;'s i…

"Solutions that start with 'let's change the world' never, ever work. Let's fix screenreaders. And help the blind by analysing what;'s in front of them, rather than changing it."

It's not screenreaders that are the problem, its the quality of the content (in terms of structure, perceivability, operability, usability and robustness). In short, GIGO. The garbage input is where the fix is needed, not the tool that's attempting to treat it as actual quality.

The "fix the screen readers" argument is a terribly terribly deep rabbit hole, requiring pretty much world-changing technologies: solving artificial intelligence, solving computer vision, teaching computers empathy, emotion, spatial relativity and context, cultural awareness, interpretation of imagery, spot and be able to translate visual cues... so many many deeply technical problems to solve.

In the choice between "fixing screenreaders" and web developers doing their jobs properly, the latter is a low hanging fruit in comparison. I assume teaching web developers basic skills is easier than teaching computers how to think and perceive (though, I recognise some people are beyond help). It takes a year to teach a web developer professional web development, it's been 60-odd years and they haven't seriously cracked artificial intelligence yet.

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

#183

Post by bunderbunder »

wfjackson wrote: post #143
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.

Not just that but it's abusing statistics. StatCounter attempts to measure browsing volume, not people using a particular browser. Net Applications attempts to measure people using a browser, so IE9's reported share is three times higher, around 9%. As an analogy, take the toothpaste market with only two players. Lets say 30% of people use Colgate and 70% use Crest. But for some reason the first group uses more tooth…

> Now, which one has a higher "marketshare"? Crest or Colgate?

Trick question.

I can't answer that question until I've decided whether I want to be a Crest fan or a Colgate fan. Sort of like how I can't decide whether to measure smartphone market size by units shipped or dollars spent without first deciding whether I want to promote Android or iOS.

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

#184

Post by coldpie »

prima-facie wrote: post #64
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.

Here you go https://www.readability.com/articles/8jmyuikb The article has horrible fonts.

As with most JS-heavy websites, NoScript improves its readability. In this case, there are no shitty fonts.

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

#185

Post by eli »

thefreeman wrote: post #161
eli wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our Energy/Utility industry news site has: 12% IE8 11% IE9 People should always run their own numbers. It can vary quite a bit from the internet-wide average.

Pretty off topic, but why would anyone ever stay on IE9? It means you are on > XP which means you should be able to upgrade to at least 10 I believe, if not 11. Is it just a lack of permissions to upgrade the browser combined with lazy administrators?

I don't know. Nearly all the IE9 users are on Win7.

If I had to guess, it's simply because upgrades are such a hassle in heavily regulated industries. (Above and beyond the typical hassles of an upgrade in any large enterprise.) I see similar numbers in Healthcare, for example, but not Education or Construction.

I keep meaning to do a blog post about the tech trends in different industries.

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

#186

Post by Isofarro »

hluska wrote: post #81

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…

"but it will get you most of the way to WCAG."

Or, you could start with the 4 principles of Accessibility (Perceivability, Operability, Usability, Robustness) and build a working knowledge set on that.

Screenreaders are complicated pieces of software, just an hour a day is not enough, you do need to fully immerse yourself as a blind person. Do your day job for a month using a screenreader and no monitor (from turning on the computer all the way to turning it off) - that will give you adequate platform in which to appreciate the blind people you want to serve.

But that's just one disability (though a large chunk). Visual impairments isn't just blind people. It's partially sighted, low vision, photosensitivity, tunnel vision, colour blindness - each have their own accessibility characteristics. And that's just sight-related accessibility issues... I haven't even started talking about motor-related disabilities, cognition related impairments.

Seriously, WCAG took absolutely ages to write, but it will give you a better perspective of a wider range of accessibility issues than using a screenreader for an hour a day.

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

#188

Post by Isofarro »

smackfu wrote: post #35
netcraft wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other metrics would you propose to use? (genuinely curious)

Yes, it's a tough decision what to support. My point is that the percentages of disabled users are often far below what would make financial sense to support, but often there is a need or legal requirement to support them regardless.

"My point is that the percentages of disabled users are often far below what would make financial sense to support"

Yet every dollar spent focused on web accessibility further improves the usability of the site for your entire audience too.

I rebuilt the Legal & General's online home insurance purchase flow. That resulted in a doubling of the number of people completing an online purchase.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/legal-and-general-case-study

There's a before/after graph in my presentation: http://isolani.co.uk/presentations/wsg/

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

#189

Post by roberthahn »

With this one weird trick, you can make the web better for up to 20% of your visitors! Let me tell you for free!

    Please caption your videos, or make transcripts available.
Did you get that?

    Please caption your videos, or make transcripts available.
Yes: 20% of people over the age of 12 have some degree of hearing loss[1]. That's 6% more (two IE9 marketshares!) than the total of vision and mobility disabilities. And if you caption, it's easy for you to see if you did it right!

[1] Google "percentage of people with hearing loss" to see multiple sources converging on this number

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

#190

Post by Silhouette »

dllthomas wrote: post #177
na85 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way. Drivers where I live are terrible. Three friends of mine were hit while road cycling in a span of 4 months. It's far, far safer to be on the sidewalk where I live.

You're less visible on the sidewalk than in a lane, and you pose a threat to others. I'd almost go so far as to say, "Cycle where you're supposed to, or don't cycle." Moving in unexpected ways in unexpected places is what leads to collisions.

While your factual statements are true, and cyclists on sidewalks can certainly be a menace, I don't think it's really tenable to argue that cyclists should always be textbook road users unless you also ensure that everyone driving larger and motorised vehicles also plays by the rules.

I live in a city known for having many cyclists, and there are always tensions between the local cycling population and the authorities about the poor level of law enforcement against dangerous drivers. Of course, there is also a poor level of law enforcement against cyclists doing dumb and illegal things. The difference is that when something goes wrong, it's usually the cyclist who ends up injured or dead, not the motorist.

So while in an ideal world we'd all get along nicely and play by the rules, I don't tend to get angry at cyclists whose choices are illegal but obviously safer (as in, I've read the actual research and current law and/or public policy clearly doesn't promote the safest option, not just doing something that intuitively feels safer but maybe isn't really).

Post reply on HN