So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users? • Hacker News Board

Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?

#51

Post by debacle » Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 7:38 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #26

One 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 de…

> It takes thought and creativity (and research)

And money. Lots and lots of money. Sometimes, especially with single-page sites, it can take more than 100% of the base budget to implement the progressive enhancement necessary for screen readers and the like.

Customers don't want to pay for it, and I'm not going to do it for free.

Your point in 2 needs to be backed up by some numbers. You can't appeal to someone's internal economist without some statistics.

Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?

#52

Post by drumdance » Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 7:46 PM UTC

jeffool wrote: post #36

Having worked as a relay operator for the deaf and hard of hearing, I can not tell you how bad forms are in virtually all software. When calling a deaf person, you may need to call a relay or translation service, meaning two phone numbers. Virtually no company, even those with a "notes" area have an established protocol for this. And many just don't have even that. And no notes is a huge pain. You know how it's a pai…

Food for thought when you're thinking about niches to target: at my last company (http://www.surveygizmo.com), the co-founder & lead designer was a big supporter of web standards and accessibility. Not because he was a disabled activist, but just because he likes to write good code.

As it turned out, accessible surveys became a huge selling point to nonprofits that serve the disabled as well as governments, which often are mandated to be accessible. This gave the company an early boost as it was pretty much the only game in town for those markets.

Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?

#53

Post by therealkatie » Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 8:32 PM UTC

debacle wrote: post #51

npsimons wrote: post #26

One 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 de…

> It takes thought and creativity (and research) And money . Lots and lots of money. Sometimes, especially with single-page sites, it can take more than 100% of the base budget to implement the progressive enhancement necessary for screen readers and the like. Customers don't want to pay for it, and I'm not going to do it for free. Your point in 2 needs to be backed up by some numbers. You can't appeal to someone's i…

If your HTML is valid, and you're not doing crazy stuff with your headers, chances are the screen reader is going to do just fine.

I worked for the government, and every single site we put out had to be 508 compliant (in other words, accessible). It never doubled our budget, ever, and we had some pretty complex interfaces.

As for point two, go check out how many Baby Boomers are alive today. Then, remember this:

Baby boomers control over 80% of personal financial assets and more than half of all consumer spending.

They're also going to start needing sites that deal with their aging eyes, poor vision, and joint issues.

Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?

#54

Post by debacle » Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 8:59 PM UTC

therealkatie wrote: post #53

debacle wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It takes thought and creativity (and research) And money . Lots and lots of money. Sometimes, especially with single-page sites, it can take more than 100% of the base budget to implement the progressive enhancement necessary for screen readers and the like. Customers don't want to pay for it, and I'm not going to do it for free. Your point in 2 needs to be backed up by some numbers. You can't appeal to someone's i…

If your HTML is valid, and you're not doing crazy stuff with your headers, chances are the screen reader is going to do just fine. I worked for the government, and every single site we put out had to be 508 compliant (in other words, accessible). It never doubled our budget, ever, and we had some pretty complex interfaces. As for point two, go check out how many Baby Boomers are alive today. Then, remember this: Baby…

If most of your site is rendered with JavaScript and most of your content is delivered via JSON, you're kind of screwed.

Re: So, You Don’t Have Any Disabled Users?

#55

Post by Joeboy » Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 9:51 AM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #26

One 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 de…

> It takes thought and creativity (and research) to make an interface that is inherently flexible and usable by just about anyone

By and large all you have to do is do things the easy, straightforward, normal, recommended way. People put a lot of thought, creativity and money into making things unusable.