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

191–200 of 250 posts

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

#191

Post by lilsunnybee »

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…

Regardless of if IE9 use is 3% or 9%, the point still stands. It's still an at least higher or comparable number of internet users that are ignored and marginalized by the workflows and decision-making of most internet app projects.

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

#192

Post by methodover »

I work at a small startup with a somewhat large user base (1M weekly users or so) and every time I bring up accessibility issues I get shot down. Just the other day I was told "You talk more about accessibility than anyone I've ever met."

Well, yeah, because apparently no one fucking cares. Including you. (I said this not out-loud, to be clear.)

Thing is, making accessible sites is usually not super difficult. It's mostly just about making sure your site follows semantic HTML standards and you're not doing funky javascripty bullshit that a screen reader can't figure out. (e.g., hover-over states on elements that pop up important help information, etc.)

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

#193

Post by dllthomas »

Silhouette wrote: post #190
dllthomas wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 authoriti…

"The difference is that when something goes wrong, it's usually the cyclist who ends up injured or dead, not the motorist."

In the case of riding on sidewalks where it is inappropriate, it's also frequently a pedestrian.

"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)."

In those cases, I agree that the cyclist should do what's safest (presuming it's safe enough - on balance - for everyone involved). So should drivers of vehicles, for that matter. My understanding is that taking the lane, where traffic is moving at a speed the cyclist can keep up with, is the best way of keeping everyone safe (I wouldn't be recommending it otherwise). You are right where everyone who might hit you can best see you. I say this as someone who cycles in a big city fairly regularly, with a spouse who bikes in a big city even more regularly, in the wake of biking safety classes. I'm not just an annoyed driver/pedestrian/whatever trying to keep the cyclist down.

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

#194

Post by autokad »

unreal37 wrote: post #142
autokad wrote: post #100

"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…

The original Microsoft research paper she pulls the number "14%" from uses questions like "do you have a visual impairment?" to determine disability. So if you wear glasses or contacts, you're disabled apparently.

agree, and trying to act like the internet is unusable by 14% of the population (all because they have a disability and those programmers and designers are ignoring their plight) raises red flags. over 1/10 people? really?

she claimed she doesn't know much about the process. which makes me wonder why write an article critiquing it then. but i can attest, making web pages usable/readable/etc to as many people as possible is always a huge part of the process.

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

#195

Post by clarry »

eknkc wrote: post #6

I hate the font choice of this article.

There was a time when the web was content (or data) and it would look how the user wanted it to look, configurable via the user agent's preferences. In fact Firefox still lets me choose fonts (and tell websites that they cannot override the fonts). I use the feature for security as well as readability. I wonder how long it is until they decide to remove the feature because it breaks the web...

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

#196

Post by lilsunnybee »

fionatg wrote: post #58
joev_ wrote: post #48

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!

I really liked the first font from a design standpoint and found it quite readable! It's ridiculous you're being attacked for voicing a very valid concern on your own blog, because of your preferred font choice. A lot of the comments both on your blog and on here seem to almost be mocking the idea that sites should be accessible, by making an unwarranted personal attack against you, when you clearly state you were never even introduced to accessibility programming through formal education, like lots and lots of developers weren't ( myself included ).

Forcing programmers to jump through extra hoops (trying /em to learn on their own, and making well-intentioned changes but not knowing if its right or enough or effective) is not the way to increase knowledge and uptake of accessibility-minded-design as the standard.

It would be nice if designers were still able to make stylistic choices with regards to fonts and website colors, that may be less readable for some, but have it degrade easily to something more readable with a simple command or click of a button. Besides some roundabout ways i can think of, or using readability, im not sure how to do that easily though.

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

#197

Post by claudius »

sp332 wrote: post #179
claudius wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarcastic, yes, but mostly relating to Opera 12.x’s UserCSS features; I didn’t actually know about userContent.css. Thanks for the pointer, although it seems to be impossible to only apply it to certain sites?

@-moz-document url-prefix() or @-moz-document domain() ? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@document http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=286866

Yay, thank you for the handholding, it actually seems to work quite nicely :-)

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

#198

Post by jakub_g »

If you want your site to be accesible, there are a number of things that are a good way to get started:

1. Contrast. Don't use gray text on gray background [1]

2. Keyboard accessibility. Avoid adding onclick handlers on elements that are not an / / [2]; use tabindex to make certain page element focusable and CSS's :active, :focus pseudoselectors (adding border, outline, changing background color etc.) to clearly indicate where's the focus for the keyboard users so they can navigate the page easily.

3. Avoid quickly-disappearing menus and everything that requires precise mouse pointing (elderly people tend to have problems with that) and can't be triggered from keyboard.

There are lots of websites failing at those basic things. When you fix that, you can start going further and making site further accessible for certain minorities.

[1] http://contrastrebellion.com/ [2] http://jakub-g.github.io/accessibility/onclick/

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

#199

Post by lilsunnybee »

leeoniya wrote: post #156
justinsteele wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? There is no irony here, she immediately points out her lack of understanding of fundamental accessibility principles. That is why she wrote about how we as an industry allow that to happen (senior engineers who know nothing about catering to disability).

sure there is. it's like an investigative journalist learning nothing (or failing to apply lessons learned) about good investigative journalism while writing about it. another comparison would be like a professional driver admitting he knows nothing about hand brakes, writing an essay about why he knows nothing about them, how he can learn and be more knowledgeable about them...and then proceeding to drive 1,000 mile…

And she was more pointing out how most developers are not ever taught or required to make their projects accessible (at least by company standards if not legally)
Post reply on HN