I agree with some earlier comments about watching out for black spots. I lost my sight in a grizzly bear mauling and learning to use adaptive technology was a critical part of my recovery which lead me back into the work place. The technology available is very helpful, but definitely has its limits and can indeed be quite frustrating at times. Agree with the article that Facebook is really not accessible in a meaningful way at all. While the mobile site is slightly better, it has no structure and is essentially made up of approximately 99 links on my mobile homepage. Like all skills though, you do get better at using a screen reader with practice. I believe the brain's neural pathways actually adapt to accommodate the way a blind user interfaces with the screen reader much in the same way it does for other tasks such as orientation and mobility (travelling blind). So, blind users actually do get used to the super fast speech that may be unintelligible to most people. With that said, I appreciate the article because there are very simple ways to make websites user friendly to the blind. Headings that are not over used and well labeled and having all controls on a site well labeled alone can make a huge difference. The other key is really simplicity. Less is more for the blind user for sure. I've tried to do that with my website (danbigley.com), but it can be difficult to test and ensure accessibility.
Things I learned by pretending to be blind for a week
71–80 of 97 posts
Re: Things I learned by pretending to be blind for a week
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, I get this, but very minor (the bits are mostly transparent and really small, but I can see them looking at the sky). I didn't know for sure whether they were physical objects or something in my mind, but they way they moved made me think they must be physical. Good to know that's actually a thing!
Those are simply nerves that run in the eye, everyone has them.
They're often just very small dust particles and minor variations in the thickness of the fluid coating the cornea as well. Those would be the ones that seem to float gently downward (sometimes almost forcing you to try to follow them, which is, of course, impossible) but which tend to reestablish their position after every blink. Annoying, but that's all.
Re: Things I learned by pretending to be blind for a week
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you never heard of the euphemism treadmill? It doesn't matter what you call it - nothing is going to change the reality. You might as well use the first word that was coined for it and stop. Every new word you find will eventually have the same emotional significance, since the underlying reality isn't going to change. And calling something by how you're not going to have it is ridiculous - yes, please walk into…
Regarding the "euphemism treadmill": sometimes it is necessary to coin a new euphemism. For example, if the common usage of a word is different from its original meaning. "Homosexual" was the name of a psychological disorder, "moron", "retard", and "idiot" were all clinical definitions of mental handicap. Times change, words continuously change meaning. Use the words that your audience understands, not the ones that…
That's the whole reason it's a treadmill: The new words will rapidly take on the new, undesired but real, meaning.
Re: Things I learned by pretending to be blind for a week
#74Shouldn't websites start having an accessible version, like they have mobile versions of their sites? These would be free of too much JavaScript fu and go directly to the meat of the matter. In fact it is possible people with no physical challenges would start preferring these simpler faster versions too. Maybe in near future, the latest trend in web will be less JS, less graphics, less animation and more matter.
This is an absolutely terrible idea that seems to refuse to die. No, it is not reasonable to put the accessible content in some sort of blind-only ghetto. Amazon do this, for instance, with a text-based version of their website. It makes it more difficult to maintain unless you've architected from the absolute beginning for it, and over time the text-based version becomes useless. Think of it from the perspective of…
Why shouldn't companies (their developers) put in the extra effort needed to keep both versions up to date? They can come up with a framework for it. It may not necessarily mean two totally separate code base. You could design your framework so that both versions feed off the same backend. And don't they have to put in that extra effort to make sure their mobile versions are up to date?
Startups have a good chance to start their framework with accessibility in mind.
An MVP could ignore this aspect, because it is not the final product yet.
Re: Things I learned by pretending to be blind for a week
#75Shouldn't websites start having an accessible version, like they have mobile versions of their sites? These would be free of too much JavaScript fu and go directly to the meat of the matter. In fact it is possible people with no physical challenges would start preferring these simpler faster versions too. Maybe in near future, the latest trend in web will be less JS, less graphics, less animation and more matter.
This is an absolutely terrible idea that seems to refuse to die. No, it is not reasonable to put the accessible content in some sort of blind-only ghetto. Amazon do this, for instance, with a text-based version of their website. It makes it more difficult to maintain unless you've architected from the absolute beginning for it, and over time the text-based version becomes useless. Think of it from the perspective of…
I want to add further to my comment that I do not oppose the idea of making the web accessible by nature, but reading so far in this post and comments, it seems hugely difficult esp considering how much of the content/elements are manipulated by javascript. How are the screen readers going to cope with that?
Re: Things I learned by pretending to be blind for a week
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an absolutely terrible idea that seems to refuse to die. No, it is not reasonable to put the accessible content in some sort of blind-only ghetto. Amazon do this, for instance, with a text-based version of their website. It makes it more difficult to maintain unless you've architected from the absolute beginning for it, and over time the text-based version becomes useless. Think of it from the perspective of…
Why shouldn't companies (their developers) put in the extra effort needed to keep both versions up to date? They can come up with a framework for it. It may not necessarily mean two totally separate code base. You could design your framework so that both versions feed off the same backend. And don't they have to put in that extra effort to make sure their mobile versions are up to date? Startups have a good chance to…
Because they won't. I'm commenting from the perspective of a blind user--I know of what I speak. Note that I explicitly said you would have to architect for it, which you reiterated in your point. Doesn't it make far more sense to make the underlying tooling accessible rather than ghettoizing the content?
My main point here is, if there's extra work to be done to make content accessible, that work simply won't be done. Hell, I wouldn't do it either -- a whole extra site template's worth for what? 1% of users? and I am totally blind.
Re: Things I learned by pretending to be blind for a week
#77Has anyone had experience with newer versions of Chrome Vox (http://www.chromevox.com/)? Would that improve the experience over the other screen readers for web browsing?
Re: Things I learned by pretending to be blind for a week
#78I'm a blind software developer who's been lurking on HN now for a couple years. Every few months an article about the blind comes across and seems to generate some discussion. I tend to stay quiet here on HN, as I generally feel I have little to contribute to the latest discussion on whether or not software is like a Japanese restaurant. Now, a few points: First, and most importantly: your web sucks. I'm a very profi…
Just a quick note to say that I did not mean to encourage replies to this comment by e-mail instead of using the comment system -- It's plenty useable enough for me to engage, and it's not until I reread my comment after the edit window had closed that I realized I gave that impression.
Re: Things I learned by pretending to be blind for a week
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
The politically correct term is "temporarily abled." This sounds goofy at first, until we realize that if we live long enough, nearly all of us lose our abilities in one way or another.
Have you never heard of the euphemism treadmill? It doesn't matter what you call it - nothing is going to change the reality. You might as well use the first word that was coined for it and stop. Every new word you find will eventually have the same emotional significance, since the underlying reality isn't going to change. And calling something by how you're not going to have it is ridiculous - yes, please walk into…
The "euphemism treadmill" is interesting, but the goal in changing terminology isn't necessarily to escape previous negative connotations. It usually better reflects our current understanding of a particular disability or state. Saying that it doesn't change the reality is pretty ignorant; many people overcome physical disabilities, only to be looked down upon by society.
For example, "retard" is overwhelmingly negative. Saying someone has a learning disability doesn't magically make them learn better, but it does:
A) treat them as a person. Imagine if we had a particular term for a person with cancer. They're not a person now, they're a "cancee", or whatever the term is. This is degrading, you're defining them in terms of their illness. The same is true of mental illnesses and physical disabilities.
B) affect reality by changing the social situation. Treating someone with a disability with respect and referring to them in the way they prefer doesn't fix all their problems, but it is a contribution you can make to helping them. This is really true of all people; you might not be able to fix everyone's problems, but you should still be nice to them.
I agree that the currently able label is a stretch, partially because it's about labeling yourself. If you don't want to be referred to as currently able, that's your choice, and I don't think it negatively impacts other people.
Edit: I meant to add that a good counter example for the treadmill is reclamation: see dyke marches, use of the word "nigger" in black culture. There aren't a lot of terms that have come full circle in modern culture, but there also aren't many iterations on the treadmill so far
Re: Things I learned by pretending to be blind for a week
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct: Floaters are normal. Fixed spots are not. Floaters, well they float . You can easily see the difference when you look left and quickly look right. Floaters keep moving a bit because of the motion. Try it in front of a clear blue sky or white wall for best results.
Wow, I get this, but very minor (the bits are mostly transparent and really small, but I can see them looking at the sky). I didn't know for sure whether they were physical objects or something in my mind, but they way they moved made me think they must be physical. Good to know that's actually a thing!
These are white blood cells moving in the capillaries in front of the retina of the eye.