Just like we have laws against discrimination based on disability and measures like handicap parking spots, does anyone envision a future where there's some sort of federal mandate that websites cater to the disabled?
Sure, we've had it for awhile
So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?
21–30 of 55 posts
Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?
#22I could be wrong - my apologies if I am - in the section about the hearing impaired, shouldn't it be "Deaf community" with a capital D?
You're right. Also, "hearing impaired" is offensive. Correct terms are 'deaf' and 'hard-of-hearing'.
I wasn't aware that "hearing impaired" was offensive. I try to be aware of these kinds of things (such as Deaf community), even though I have no exposure to it (personally nor via people I know) - thanks for the correction.
Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?
#23What about disabled employees? Do employee handbooks and HR materials have to be accessible to the visually impaired, for example?
In general, yes. There's a few exceptions, but in general you should have an accessible version for the visually impaired (or, really, any of the groups I list in the article. Are your training videos captioned for the Deaf? Can someone with motion issues navigate your HR site using Tab or adaptive devices? Is the language overly contrived or the font and color choices bad?)
Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?
#24"One of the newer groups under the accessibility umbrella, this group has become more vocal in the past few years. Those with dyslexia and ADD or ADHD have begun to press for a less busy Internet, one where ads don’t distract them to the point of being unable to use a site, or where proper contrast is used, rather than the more artistic combinations of light text against an only slightly lighter background." IMO, bro…
Firefox makes the binary choice straightforward: accept the site's styling, or use no styling: "View/Page Style/No Style". I find myself going to no style much more frequently these days, as cool UIs become fashionable but are still hard to get right, especially cross browser. So what does someone do in between? Immerse themselves in hidden browser settings? Use greasemonkey?
Firefox has the option to let you set the font and a minimum font size, and will force all sites to stick to it. (Tools -> Options -> Content -> Advanced)
I view the entire internet in Times New Roman 20 pt. I have to turn it off for more complicated sites like amazon, where having giant font in their tiny boxes breaks functionality, but it works beautifully on simple sites like hacker news, where I spend most of my time. (And by "beautifully" I mean, it's butt-ugly, but I can sit back from the computer at a comfortably ergonomic distance and read without straining my eyes.)
Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?
#25I could be wrong - my apologies if I am - in the section about the hearing impaired, shouldn't it be "Deaf community" with a capital D?
You're right. Also, "hearing impaired" is offensive. Correct terms are 'deaf' and 'hard-of-hearing'.
How the heck is "impaired" offensive but "hard of" not offensive.
Let's see what the national association of the deaf says. "The term focuses on what people can’t do. It establishes the standard as “hearing” and anything different as “impaired,” or substandard, hindered, or damaged."
By what interpretation of words does "hard of" not do the exact same thing. Did I miss an important evolution of English again?
Edit: Looked some more. NCDS is fine with "hearing impaired" but says that some people object. Then I found this page http://www.deaflinx.com/DeafCommunity/identity.html Its objection to "hearing impaired" is the mere fact that it ignores people's culture/identity choices wrt the Deaf community. This reasoning reminds me of the insular sub-community of the deaf that tries to push 'Deaf Culture' so strongly that they can be against fixing people's ability to hear; people that will make 'Deaf' their very identity. To be honest I don't care what those people find offensive.
But if you have a better reasoning than those people I am ready and willing to learn and accept it.
Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?
#26One thing that always surprises me is how many people take offense to the suggestion to make their software/websites more accessible, as if it's trampling on their artistic freedom. Even here on enlightened HN, the top-most comment seems to worry about some "Orwellian" future where non-accessible websites are verboten.
I prefer to look at making things accessible in two more positive ways:
1. It's a challenge; any designer can slap together a slick looking website. It takes thought and creativity (and research) to make an interface that is inherently flexible and usable by just about anyone.
2. Sure, you might scoff at the market possibilities today (seven percent? who cares!). But as life expectancy goes up, so do the numbers with disability, and the longer someone is alive, the more money they are likely to have. Reap those baby boomers! (cynical, yes; but this is business after all).
Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?
#27"Those with dyslexia and ADD or ADHD have begun to press for a less busy Internet, one where ads don’t distract them to the point of being unable to use a site, or where proper contrast is used, rather than the more artistic combinations of light text against an only slightly lighter background." Aah, your gray font used to write this is hard to read and I haven't been characterized for any of these. Also, HN seems t…
I just select it with my mouse, but I'm not sure how effective that is on a touch device.
It's not. Dead posts are moreso on mobile.
HN as a whole on mobile is a somewhat miserable experience.
Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?
#28I could be wrong - my apologies if I am - in the section about the hearing impaired, shouldn't it be "Deaf community" with a capital D?
Can't we get an umbrella-PC term, like "Impaired ability to process and respond to audio data"?
Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?
#29I could be wrong - my apologies if I am - in the section about the hearing impaired, shouldn't it be "Deaf community" with a capital D?
You're right. Also, "hearing impaired" is offensive. Correct terms are 'deaf' and 'hard-of-hearing'.
on the other hand, i like to think of myself as "hearing endowed"
Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?
#30I could be wrong - my apologies if I am - in the section about the hearing impaired, shouldn't it be "Deaf community" with a capital D?
Can't we get an umbrella-PC term, like "Impaired ability to process and respond to audio data"?
Well, "Deaf" isn't an attempt to be PC. There is a discrete Deaf culture which makes sense given their relative social isolation, common challenges and distinct language(s).