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

21–30 of 250 posts

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

#21

Post by jerf »

Tomte wrote: post #2

Probably because those 3% are homogeneous, while the 9% decompose into lots and lots of categories, all with specific needs, and all much smaller than 9%.

Yes. Off the top of my head, I know of at least four different types of color blindness (from red-green all the way down to total monochromatic vision), total blindness, significant visual impairment (listed separately from blindness due to different accommodations), deafness, significant motor impairment making navigation difficult, and dyslexia (which there are ways of accommodating).

Thinking about what it takes to make an IE7 user happy is easy; you just install IE7 and bash on your site until it works. Thinking about all those requirements... it's hard to look at that pile of requirements without recoiling in horror at the size of the task... at least, if you want to do anything else on your site, too. Something as simple as a single drop-down menu colored a bit "cleverly" and you've potentially whacked everyone on that list up there except the deaf. Consequently, I disagree entirely with the idea that it's just a matter of using simple HTML or something... it's actually a matter of choosing to give up on everything fancy, and that's a much harder sell.

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

#22

Post by vacri »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #15
Tomte wrote: post #2

Probably because those 3% are homogeneous, while the 9% decompose into lots and lots of categories, all with specific needs, and all much smaller than 9%.

...although you can do a damn good job addressing most of them with a few simple things: -Write good, semantic HTML, and use alt tags correctly -Don't overwrite browser defaults for scrolling, tabbing, etc (even if it's "hot design") -Don't rely purely on color to convey information -Use ARIA attributes where you can if you're building an application Some harder stuff that is really still worth it: -Send your media o…

Don't rely purely on color to convey information

And, conversely, don't submit to the current fad of low-contrast grayscale.

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

#24

Post by bitJericho »

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…

IE9 users are most often workers who are your best customers.

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

#25

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

bitJericho wrote: post #19
__xtrimsky wrote: post #5

Well to be honest I can test my code in IE9 to see if it works. But I have no idea how a disabled person is experiencing my website, I do put all the "alt" attributes etc...but it's hard to imagine it.

I like to remove all formatting and see how things look. If it still makes sense and is laid out well, you're doing ok.

Similarly, testing in Lynx is a good idea.

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

#26

Post by speg »

ColinDabritz wrote: post #7

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.

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

#27

Post by fionatg »

ColinDabritz wrote: post #7

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…

I agree, it correlates well with "think before you code"

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

#28

Post by lmm »

speg wrote: post #26
ColinDabritz wrote: post #7

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.

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.

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

#30

Post by fionatg »

thefreeman wrote: post #23

Where are those numbers from? 3% seems really low. I would guess the IE8 (being the highest version that can run on XP) population is much higher then that, but IE9 was chosen to make the number look better.

IE8 was 6%, which I think still validates the point. I actually chose IE9 because a lot of companies have actually dropped support on IE8 but are still supporting IE9 (mine included).
Post reply on HN