Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

jacobbartlett.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 302 posts

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#241

Post by extra88 »

coolliquidcode wrote: post #181
JadeNB wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things like alt text is so time consuming it would be incredibly expensive to label all the images. Facebook has long resorted to using AI descriptions. > Really it shouldn't be up to the developer it should be up to the disabled person to buy tools. Just like someone may need to buy a wheelchair to move around, they should have to buy a specialty browser that handles their limited visibility needs or brail tool in…

It sucks to be disabled and this is why it sucks. People shouldn't be wasting lifetimes of time to so that visually disabled people can be slightly more convenienced to browse the internet or play with an app. Especially with alt-text. Minimal effort is fine. Well structured HTML is all that should be needed. > How can buying a specialty browser solve a problem of a blind person needing alt text for images? If a pict…

Domino's did not make an effort until they lost in court. They even admitted during the course of the case that the requested fixes would cost like $58,000 to make, far less than the lawyers cost in the case and appeals.

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#242

Post by madeofpalk »

neomantra wrote: post #229
madeofpalk wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't really need to do that. The point of putting alt text on images is to users who use screen readers can still understand your website. Tabbing through in a screen reader hearing detailed descriptions of each social logo is probably a poor user experience. Probably just "Github logo" or even "Github" would do just as well. If the image/logo is purely presentational (that is - if you remove the image do you re…

Thanks for that feedback, I appreciate it. The road to bad UX is paved with good intentions. Is the issue specifically the aria-label being too verbose? Like it's OK for the other metadata or even that's overkill?

It's probably overkill. The other way of looking at it is that if you put all that content in the visible text, does the page still read correctly? If the image is only used to convey the word "Github", then that's probably all your alt tag needs to be.

The best way to figure it out is to use the screen reader in your operating system. It's hard to judge usability without actually using it.

Aria-label, and the rest of the HTML (like just the text content, or label attributes, etc) all build up the accessibility tree which is what screen readers read out. All browser dev tools should have a way to view this. If putting a inside an SVG doesn't result in that showing up in the accessibility tree, it's next to useless.

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#243

Post by extra88 »

threatofrain wrote: post #93
ijwann wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck getting your organization to support building two apps. And even if you succeed once, good luck getting your organization to ship features twice every single time they want to build something. What will end up happening is you have your normal app which isn't accessible, and a second app with a fraction of your features that is likely often broken because it's hard to prioritize.

You have one backend and two frontends, one of which is simplified and all-about-the-data. I daresay there's the possibility that it's easier to create two websites than it is to make one website do two things.

You might have heard of this thing called "responsive web design," (RWD) it's pretty popular. RWD is all about it not being better to make two websites (in that case, "mobile" vs. "desktop") instead of one.

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#244

Post by fngjdflmdflg »

neonsunset wrote: post #239
fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not too familiar with C# but I know it does not have a sound type system and it appears to require the "new" keyword for instantiating new objects. You need to import System.Collections for dynamiaclly sized arrays. Also appears to not have python-like print() (requires Console.WriteLine()). It also doesn't have flutter obviously. But in any case my point was more that Dart isn't really like Java. Why do you thin…

We’re reaching the levels of hello world optimization even the staunchest proponents of top-level statements (write Program.cs python script style) considered impossible.

What about sound types? And I think having dynamically sized arrays in the language rather than standard library is an improvement in general because it removes extra cognitive load. Same for "print()." It just makes the language easier to write. The same way we never really need to pass functions as arguments because we can always pass an object that is guaranteed to have that function defined for it via interfaces. This is what is generally done in Java and it is awful.

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#245

Post by coolliquidcode »

extra88 wrote: post #241
coolliquidcode wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sucks to be disabled and this is why it sucks. People shouldn't be wasting lifetimes of time to so that visually disabled people can be slightly more convenienced to browse the internet or play with an app. Especially with alt-text. Minimal effort is fine. Well structured HTML is all that should be needed. > How can buying a specialty browser solve a problem of a blind person needing alt text for images? If a pict…

Domino's did not make an effort until they lost in court. They even admitted during the course of the case that the requested fixes would cost like $58,000 to make, far less than the lawyers cost in the case and appeals.

You are arguing they should have been forced to pay 58k for unnecessary site improvements when each place has a phone line that can be called. They did have alt text but it was deemed not good enough. What real value did disabled customers miss out on?

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#246

Post by neomantra »

madeofpalk wrote: post #242
neomantra wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for that feedback, I appreciate it. The road to bad UX is paved with good intentions. Is the issue specifically the aria-label being too verbose? Like it's OK for the other metadata or even that's overkill?

It's probably overkill. The other way of looking at it is that if you put all that content in the visible text, does the page still read correctly? If the image is only used to convey the word "Github", then that's probably all your alt tag needs to be. The best way to figure it out is to use the screen reader in your operating system. It's hard to judge usability without actually using it. Aria-label, and the rest o…

Thanks for taking the time to give this guidance =)

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#247

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

freedomben wrote: post #208
jakey_bakey wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say what you want about Apple, they hit the nail on the head when it comes to A11y APIs

Indeed, I'm a very big critic of Steve Jobs and Apple, but when they prioritize stuff, they can do some damn fine work, and to this day they still have some terrific a11y features. Relatedly, "I don't care about the bloody ROI" was quite an incredible moment.

Well, I believe they are serious about privacy, despite constant insinuations that they are not.

I believe that Cook is totally serious, because he's a gay man who supports his community of shared interest. If there's one community that has some serious "skin in the game," when it comes to privacy, it's gay folks. There's places in the world, where it's worth your life, to be outed.

But he's just one man, and no spring chicken. His successor may not be as vigilant. Also, Peter Thiel runs Palantir, so there's that.

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#248

Post by objectivetruth »

slily wrote: post #97
SamBorick wrote: post #46

It's amazing how many people in this thread are seriously suggesting that these a11y features are not important. Do HN readers not understand that someday they will grow old, and their eyesight will fail, and they will find themselves increasing the font size on their devices?

Look, accessibility* is great and important to many people, and if you can afford to prioritize it early on in your product development, that's great - but it is not productive to treat commercial products like critical infrastructure, ignore the costs of implementing accessibility features (common tooling and standardization make it much easier, thankfully), and exaggerate the benefits. The article starts off with t…

[dead]

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#249

Post by pxc »

madeofpalk wrote: post #183
PaulStatezny wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it be better to just have a "low vision" version of the app, a "low touch accuracy" version of the app, etc? I find your comment interesting because it speaks to users who can see, just not well . When I think of web accessibility, I (mostly) think of users who are entirely blind. While it turns out: ~80% of screen reader users are blind. The other ~20% may be partially vision impaired, or sometimes not vi…

Do you wear glasses? HoW many people do you know need corrective lenses?

'Low vision' covers a lot of the same ground as phrases like 'legally blind' and 'partially sighted'. It doesn't mean people who rely on corrective lenses whose corrected vision is more or less normal.

Re: Oh shit, my app is successful and I didn't think about accessibility

#250

Post by DANmode »

jakey_bakey wrote: post #88
huqedato wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moreover, the target "audience" of an app is always specified before the design phase, in the Business Requirements Document and such and it's a defining element for the development. I've read/wrote hundreds of such documents in my career, yet I've never seen one that sets its target audience as 'everybody'.

If your startup has a Business Requirements Document, you launched too late

Or you're not consumer-facing?
Post reply on HN