> There's a version of this article without the middle finger emoji. People really get offended by the middle finger emoji? Wow.
You can find someone to get offended by anything, if you look hard enough. It's like a kind of Rule 34 of offendedness.
Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
31–40 of 42 posts
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#32> This post is about you and me. Scores indicate the quality of our apps and sites, but we must not trust these numbers thoughtlessly. We have to understand that automatic testing is just a first step. I run my own scoring tool website best practices and SEO, and often get support requests from users who are worried or annoyed they can't get a perfect score. Some of my general views here: - Scores serve more as a min…
I had a quick look at your scoring tool. It looks quite useful. Couple of issues I spotted: - You're recommending a maximum meta description length of 320. That's no longer what Google recommends. - I got all green ticks for mobile scaling on a site with "maximum-scale=1". Maximum scale should ideally be avoided.
Maximum scaling is really annoying on mobile. Thankfully you can override it in Chromium's accessibility settings menu (I hope they don't remove that!)
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they are no good for screen reader users, what's their puprpose for non-screen reader users? I can only think of bad use-cases. Duplicating content the site wants to promote or a duplicated navigation. Things would probably be more clean without in most cases.
Screen readers often read things in particular ways that non-screen readers would interpret differently. One example that I've run into is using all caps to label something, like "ACCOUNT NAME". Screen readers will typically read out each letter individually instead of as a word. There could be other things, like describing field colors or something that are not as useful when audio only.
Should the all uppercase be something CSS like text-transform: capitalize, and not affect screen readers?
Where something is explicitly visual-only, I agree that there can be cases.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#34> This post is about you and me. Scores indicate the quality of our apps and sites, but we must not trust these numbers thoughtlessly. We have to understand that automatic testing is just a first step. I run my own scoring tool website best practices and SEO, and often get support requests from users who are worried or annoyed they can't get a perfect score. Some of my general views here: - Scores serve more as a min…
I had a quick look at your scoring tool. It looks quite useful. Couple of issues I spotted: - You're recommending a maximum meta description length of 320. That's no longer what Google recommends. - I got all green ticks for mobile scaling on a site with "maximum-scale=1". Maximum scale should ideally be avoided.
> - You're recommending a maximum meta description length of 320. That's no longer what Google recommends.
Thanks, can you provide a link that gives a length recommendation? On https://developers.google.com/search/docs/beginner/seo-start... they say:
"While there's no minimal or maximal length for the text in a description meta tag, we recommend making sure that it's long enough to be fully shown in Search (note that users may see different sized snippets depending on how and where they search)"
This one is tricky because the maximum number of characters Google displays is open to change (and there's more search engines than only Google too).
> I got all green ticks for mobile scaling on a site with "maximum-scale=1". Maximum scale should ideally be avoided.
Thanks, I'll look into this. Rule https://www.checkbot.io/guide/seo/#rule-set-mobile-scaling is only checking for `width=device-width, initial-scale=1` right now (cited from https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/mobile-seo...) and not looking at `maximum-sale`, so this falls under being a decent baseline but still more you could do.
What range of `maximum-scale` should be allowed if any? Off the top of my head, `1.1` is probably just as bad but `100` is probably okay. I'm curious what the typical values used are.
In general, I've been pretty conservative about what rules I've added, sticking to ones that are generally agreed on and generate minimal false positives.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#35> Designing the most wheel-chair inaccessible building that meets all accessibility codes! > btw guys this isn't really about accessibility guidelines it's just about, uh, the importance of not relying on those guidelines, or something. totally not me venting about having to follow accessibility guidelines in the first place as many of my professional colleagues are known for doing.
The complaint seems very clear to me as being about this automated test being unreliable as a sole measure of accessibility. If it was about wheelchair accsssibility, it would be like if "you must have a ramp by a door" earned a big "100% wheelchair accessible" sticker after you send your blueprints in to the automated test, and them pointing out the ramp could be on the roof.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accessibility is just usability. You cannot automate usability tests. You have to put it in front of a real human and see if they can use it.
> Accessibility is just usability. Common thought, but not really true. The basics of accessibility might be considered just "usability" or even UX, but going beyond that, it steps in being useful for people with certain disabilities while not impacting people without. One example from the article, `aria-hidden="true"` ( https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#aria-hidden ) might be used to hide elements containing text that…
You just described usability! General UX.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#37> There's a version of this article without the middle finger emoji. People really get offended by the middle finger emoji? Wow.
People get really offended by a sign designed to cause offence? Wow. You might feel some moral high ground by abandoning all tradition and traditional social contracts, but those traditions and traditional social contracts are still held in high regard by many many people.
Yeah, using a sign designed to cause offence in a very obviously joking and non-personalized manner is not offensive. Anyone taking offense is wound too fucking tight. Maybe if it were somehow historical used to target a certain group of people like certain words, I'd agree. But nothing like that is happening here.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
People get really offended by a sign designed to cause offence? Wow. You might feel some moral high ground by abandoning all tradition and traditional social contracts, but those traditions and traditional social contracts are still held in high regard by many many people.
Some people abandon all traditional social contracts only to embrace totally new social co tracts and then demand that everyone else embrace then too.
Is this commentary on pronouns?
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#39> There's a version of this article without the middle finger emoji. People really get offended by the middle finger emoji? Wow.
People get really offended by a sign designed to cause offence? Wow. You might feel some moral high ground by abandoning all tradition and traditional social contracts, but those traditions and traditional social contracts are still held in high regard by many many people.
Maybe this is the Aussie in me, but the middle finger as an offensive gesture is so mild I'd be surprised if anyone with access to the wider internet would actually be shocked to see it - let alone a cartoon emoji of it.
It doesn't have anything to do with abandoning tradition and living the edgelord life; the middle finger is firmly up there with "crap" or "bugger" on the "people were using this in ads 15 years ago" end of the offensive spectrum.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#40> There's a version of this article without the middle finger emoji. People really get offended by the middle finger emoji? Wow.
People get really offended by a sign designed to cause offence? Wow. You might feel some moral high ground by abandoning all tradition and traditional social contracts, but those traditions and traditional social contracts are still held in high regard by many many people.
This doesn’t really make sense. The article isn’t flipping you off. It’s an implied fictional website designer flipping off hypothetical impaired users, as a metaphor for what these design decisions might imply if done in earnest. It’s hard to imagine what social contract is being broken here.