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

51–60 of 250 posts

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

#51

Post by krschultz »

seanbehan wrote: post #11

Show me a virtual machine that I can test with, that puts me in the shoes of a user w/ a disability, and I'll develop with accessibility in mind. But the inability to replicate the experience in full, I think , inhibits catering to that demographic.

That's a strawman.

Making a web site or mobile application accessible is about making it parseable to the accessibility application that the user with disability has installed on their machine. A text to speech app needs to be able to access all the content. Put the right tags on fields. Add alt tags on images.

On Android, the Lint tool actually calls these things out. I have no idea what it feels like to use a screen reader, but I spent the time to actually put in those tags to enable it for the users of the app. It doesn't take long.

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

#52

Post by mwcampbell »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #10
__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.

Download the Visual Impairment Simulator? Try Microsoft Narrator (or VoiceOver, if you're on OS X) with your eyes closed? Both are easy and free.

If you want to test with a free Windows screen reader, you're much better off testing with NVDA (http://www.nvaccess.org/) than Narrator.

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

#53

Post by nailer »

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.

A lot of skaters and kids on scooters and have become injured thanks to the those rubber stoppers. You can't rely on them if you're disabled, because they're not on every corner. I've also read that it's cheaper to give disabled people a full time minder than to run these programmes.

Solutions that start with 'let's change the world' never, ever work. Let's fix screenreaders. And help the blind by analysing what;'s in front of them, rather than changing it.

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

#54

Post by DanBC »

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…

If you've seen tenders for websites that ignore usability for disabled users you've seen companies that are, depending where they are, breaking or close to breaking the law.

Obviously you can't name and shame, but a blog post saying "I have seen X number of website tenders and none of them include any mention of usability for disabled users" would get some notice.

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

#55

Post by dbaupp »

leorocky wrote: post #44
joblessjunkie wrote: post #32

I have poor vision. This website uses a herd-to-read font and disables pinch-to-zoom (an essential feature) on my iPad.

This website is even difficult to read on a regular desktop browser (too wide, downvoted comments increasingly impossible to read causing eye strain). I recommend using your own content script with Chrome. This may not help on your iPad but on Android you can use Firefox with your own userscript. It's the only way I can tolerate it. It would probably take a competent someone a few hours to fix the readability issues…

I don't think joblessjunkie was talking about HN.

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

#56

Post by JackFr »

bitbandit wrote: post #46

I am guessing that 14% = color blind + users with cataract + various other visual impairments. You usually can't have a design that makes all of them happy at once. For example, high contrast UI themes often leave large white areas on the screen that users with glaucoma find blinding, but other users like a lot.

I'd like to see the original survey. 14% sounds awful high.

http://www.nei.nih.gov/CanWeSee/

http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/2C.html

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

#57

Post by eli »

ceejayoz wrote: post #33
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.

Our stats show 2.3% IE8 users. We handle sites for major, general-market brands, so it's not skewed as it would be on a tech startup or something.

Our Energy/Utility industry news site has: 12% IE8 11% IE9

People should always run their own numbers. It can vary quite a bit from the internet-wide average.

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

#58

Post by fionatg »

joev_ wrote: post #48
joblessjunkie wrote: post #32

I have poor vision. This website uses a herd-to-read font and disables pinch-to-zoom (an essential feature) on my iPad.

To be fair, there is a large disclaimer: > I'd like to start this post with a disclaimer: I don't know much about creating accessible websites.

Exactly, it sort of re-inforces my point that when I was designing that site I didn't really think about it. I don't have to be an accessibility expert to discuss the fact that developers don't tend to create accessible sites!

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

#59

Post by mikeash »

nailer wrote: post #53
speg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of skaters and kids on scooters and have become injured thanks to the those rubber stoppers. You can't rely on them if you're disabled, because they're not on every corner. I've also read that it's cheaper to give disabled people a full time minder than to run these programmes. Solutions that start with 'let's change the world' never, ever work. Let's fix screenreaders. And help the blind by analysing what;'s i…

Which "these programmes" are you referring to?

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

#60

Post by bunderbunder »

colanderman wrote: post #34
lmm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've seen multiple bicyclists almost hit by in-controls cars because they couldn't ride safely on the sidewalks without those ramps. (Yes, riding on sidewalks is technically illegal. There are many places where it's much much safer and there are no pedestrians to bother.)

In most cases you're more likely to be hit by a car if you're riding on the sidewalk. Last numbers I suggest that your risk of being killed by a car is about twice as high when you're on the sidewalk.

The reason is simple: Bikes move quickly, and bikes on the sidewalk are much harder for motorists to see than bikes on the street. That makes it extremely difficult - sometimes impossible - for drivers to see or anticipate when a bike is about to cross a street, alley, or driveway. Meanwhile, cyclists are relatively unaware of their surroundings compared to pedestrians, for the same reason that motorists are: They're moving faster. These two factors can easily combine to create a sudden use-of-space conflict that cyclists never win.

Post reply on HN