31–40 of 42 posts
But did it improve the click-through rate?
If that is the case I wouldn’t be surprised if churn rate was negatively correlated with accessibility.
Absolutely, because not all disabilities are permanent. They can broken into lifelong disabilities, acquired, temporary, situational, and chronic (potentially among others). Just think of how many people who can hear still use captioning on their TVs. Or how easy your website is to reading on a phone during a bright, sunny day. Or how usable your stuff is for someone holding a child in one arm. Accessibility (and thu…
I've given up on hearing people talk clearly in most shows and movies. Sound mixing is horrible and seems to be getting worse! The music should not be just as load as the speaker!!!!
My understanding was that skipping accessibility features was more about cost than anything else.
Do you think it's more expensive to implement a few accessibility features their site had with little effort in the 90s, or to fight a case to the Supreme Court, as in the case of Domino's?
Absolutely, because not all disabilities are permanent. They can broken into lifelong disabilities, acquired, temporary, situational, and chronic (potentially among others). Just think of how many people who can hear still use captioning on their TVs. Or how easy your website is to reading on a phone during a bright, sunny day. Or how usable your stuff is for someone holding a child in one arm. Accessibility (and thu…
> Just think of how many people who can hear still use captioning on their TVs. I've given up on hearing people talk clearly in most shows and movies. Sound mixing is horrible and seems to be getting worse! The music should not be just as load as the speaker!!!!
Get them to install Vimium extension and a Tilling Windows Manager.
..but you know what helps more? big buttons I can click with the eye tracker! not hidden in modals that vanish when I move the mouse away!
Certainly many things recommended for disabled users are of great benefit to non-disabled users, but there are also things that are recommended against for disabled users that the lack of can slightly hinder the usability of sites or applications. One particular thing is that it is generally recommended against auto focusing in fields, but for sighted non-keyboard navigating users there are many applications in which…
> One particular thing is that it is generally recommended against auto focusing in fields [...] What do you mean by "generally recommended"? The publication reviews WCAG 2.0. I don't know any WCAG recommendation that fits your described annoyance. In fact, WCAG 2.1 does recommend to e.g. put focus on the first form element with failing form validation, see https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/forms/notifications/#after-…
If for example you have an application for finding service errors in an area you might show a form when people first enter the application, search for address, users search and select the address the form goes away and shows results (this right there would be an accessibility error although quite reasonable for a non-disabled user) at the top of results there is a change address button, clicking that brings the search form back into view and sets the focus in the search field.
The loss of context with that operation could be a real problem for a blind user (there are of course lots of forms of visual disability, so I will in this case specify it is blindness that is most seriously bothered by this common functionality that benefits sighted users, but at any rate I have interacted with some applications that did this which navigating blind was an irritant and navigating with sight a benefit)
So what I mean by generally recommended is - don't do things like my scenario above which violate point 3 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/on-focus.html even though that behavior is a minor benefit for the sighted user with no disability, and in the case of a sighted user with motor disabilities probably a real benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One particular thing is that it is generally recommended against auto focusing in fields [...] What do you mean by "generally recommended"? The publication reviews WCAG 2.0. I don't know any WCAG recommendation that fits your described annoyance. In fact, WCAG 2.1 does recommend to e.g. put focus on the first form element with failing form validation, see https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/forms/notifications/#after-…
actually I was going quite fast when I wrote it, and I wrote auto focus when what I was trying to convey is step 3 of the intent - focus is changed to another component when that component receives focus; If for example you have an application for finding service errors in an area you might show a form when people first enter the application, search for address, users search and select the address the form goes away…
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this seems to be a totally correlational result. That is, they found that websites with increased accessibility tend to also be more usable. This is easily explained by assuming that developers who care about usability also tend to care about accessibility. It is more difficult to explain in a directly causative way, since many accessibility features, such as aria attributes, are complete…
There's also a 3rd category of users, the bots, and crawlers/scrapers can greatly benefit from some of those invisible accessibility features...
Get them to install Vimium extension and a Tilling Windows Manager.