Live data from Hacker News

Discord's new UX design is harmful to the visually impaired and colorblind

support.discord.com

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: Discord's new UX design is harmful to the visually impaired and colorblind

#91
post #10

The language here rubs me the wrong way. Everything is stated as being "incredibly harmful" with no explanation beyond > ...directly harms visually impaired individuals due to lack of visual clarity. I am also not sure how "Elements lack unity" is related to the UI causing harm. I don't use discord, so I have no idea how good the UI is. If the UI is bad and hard for the visually impaired to use, there is definitely a…

It is disappointing to see that the comments here are dominated by tone policing and semantics. We ought to be able to look at the substance of the criticism and not get distracted by some of the word choices. The post makes several concrete claims in clear language that are worthy of discussion. I use discord, I have a mild color anomaly in my vision, and have had problems reading low-contrast elements in the UI. Di…

Accusations of tone policing are themselves tone policing, so there's disappointment all around. How we use language is important to plenty of people; there's a reason OP is the top comment.

There are indeed discussion-worthy claims in the post, and they're discussed elsewhere in the comments. Why hijack the top comment to change the subject?

Re: Discord's new UX design is harmful to the visually impaired and colorblind

#92
post #10

The language here rubs me the wrong way. Everything is stated as being "incredibly harmful" with no explanation beyond > ...directly harms visually impaired individuals due to lack of visual clarity. I am also not sure how "Elements lack unity" is related to the UI causing harm. I don't use discord, so I have no idea how good the UI is. If the UI is bad and hard for the visually impaired to use, there is definitely a…

It is disappointing to see that the comments here are dominated by tone policing and semantics. We ought to be able to look at the substance of the criticism and not get distracted by some of the word choices. The post makes several concrete claims in clear language that are worthy of discussion. I use discord, I have a mild color anomaly in my vision, and have had problems reading low-contrast elements in the UI. Di…

> It is disappointing to see that the comments here are dominated by tone policing and semantics.

I agree, but I'm afraid the argument that the post is making is not based on a logical series of steps. It doesn't follow the typical convention of observation, problem, evidence, conclusion. The post is substantially an emotional outpouring and a call to action. This changes the dialectics.

If you're going to create a central claim that is solely Pathos based, the tone and semantics of how you do so become the most important thing in your argument and, to your point, this is why this post comes off so _wrong_. The post author failed at convincing this audience in large part because of their tone and semantics.

Re: Discord's new UX design is harmful to the visually impaired and colorblind

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should rub you the wrong way because the language is wrong! The author has used the wrong word to describe the problem. If you replace the word harm and harmful with difficult it makes sense. harmful: of a kind likely to be damaging difficult: hard to deal with, manage, or overcome I've done it for everyone: >Saturated dark colors against dark backgrounds are hard to read and difficult to parse >White mentions lac…

For the visually impaired, it's not "difficult" to use, it's closer to "impossible" to use. By toning back the language, you've made it sound like whining and not a legitimate concern. You make it easy to ignore.

By that logic, everyone should use caps and shout. Ad absurdum.

Re: Discord's new UX design is harmful to the visually impaired and colorblind

#94

I miss the times™ where theming was a thing in my favorite programs and environments. WinAmp, MySpace, even my Nokia 6300 had themes. I never understood why this trend didn't stay and become more popular.

It's doubly annoying when you consider that apps like Discord that leverage web tech have a very capable themeing system built in to them via CSS and the user styles web standard.

Re: Discord's new UX design is harmful to the visually impaired and colorblind

#95

Does anyone know which kind of websites and apps are required to implement accessibility? I thought it was only government websites originally but then I looked it up and saw that it's a bit more than that. Is there a simple rule to know when I'm required to do this? (I'm not looking for answers that say: you should always do it because it's a good thing to do. I want to know what the rules are.)

So, legally speaking, no website or app is _required_ by the Americans with Disabilites Act (ADA) to be made accessible. Title III of the ADA is the part that deals with public businesses and it doesn't mention digital services at all, but has been interpreted by various courts to include websites, there was a notable case against Dominos about this, wherein the judge ruled that Dominos did, in fact, have to make their online ordering tool fully accessible to people using screen readers, but this was the judge's understanding of the law and hasn't been challenged at a higher court. There's also section 508 of Title II of the ADA that does require government websites to be accessible, but it imposes no such requirements on private businesses. The DOJ apparently was considering a formal guidance on this a few years ago, but it never materialized.

Here's a quote from an article I'll link below, this article seems up to date with my knowledge of the matter and I think will help answer most of your questions. (Even if that answer is "lol, who knows"):

> ADA legislation as is applies to websites is currently a gray area. This often leaves the interpretation of the law up to the court where the lawsuit is filed, generally a state court. Suits have been filed in every state, though the majority of cases are in New York, Florida, California, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. > > Do all websites have to be ADA compliant? That depends. Courts generally reach one of the following conclusions: > > Yes, a business website is considered a “public accommodation” and must be accessible. > Yes, but only if the business also has a physical location that serves the public. > No, the ADA does not specifically address websites and therefore does not apply.

https://www.accessiblemetrics.com/blog/do-all-websites-have-...

So, the answer is that there are several good reasons to make your site and/or app accessible: You should do it because it's the right thing to do, it improves your ranking in google (a site that can be screen read can be mechanically crawled easier and is viewed favorably by Google's search algorithm), and there may come a day in the near future where it is mandated.

Honestly, I'd recommend reading through the WCAG standards sometime. It's a very well thought out document that lays out pretty straight forward approaches to making your digital content more accessible to users with a wide variety of disabilities. When people think 'accessibility' they often are only thinking about blind or vision impaired users, but there's so much more to it than that, and a lot of what you do as you build an app or site affects accessibility, whether you know it or not.

Dyslexic people have issues with some fonts, for instance, I don't think it's unreasonable to build your site in a way that lets the user override the font using their browser's settings. Or for people with limited motor control, placing frequently used together controls nearer to each other can improve both your UX and your accessibility for people with motor impairments.

I realize this isn't the easy, straightforward answer you wanted, but this is the reality of the situation.

Re: Discord's new UX design is harmful to the visually impaired and colorblind

#96

Does anyone know which kind of websites and apps are required to implement accessibility? I thought it was only government websites originally but then I looked it up and saw that it's a bit more than that. Is there a simple rule to know when I'm required to do this? (I'm not looking for answers that say: you should always do it because it's a good thing to do. I want to know what the rules are.)

So, legally speaking, no website or app is _required_ by the Americans with Disabilites Act (ADA) to be made accessible. Title III of the ADA is the part that deals with public businesses and it doesn't mention digital services at all, but has been interpreted by various courts to include websites, there was a notable case against Dominos about this, wherein the judge ruled that Dominos did, in fact, have to make the…

Just realized I should have edited that first sentence to say "No _private_ website or app"

Re: Discord's new UX design is harmful to the visually impaired and colorblind

#97

People have had serious complaints about the accessibility of Discord's UI for ages, disheartening to find out that they've made it worse as part of another redesign. I wish there was more of an incentive for companies to take this seriously. Hard to forget the bit where they removed Light Mode as a "joke". Very funny until you remember that many people can't easily use Discord in Dark Mode (in part because of how po…

Yup, their contrast on a lot of elements is already way too low and this isn't helping. And light mode is honestly worse for accessibility on Discord because the vast majority of their base use dark mode and make choices for things that only work in dark mode. Like having a bright yellow for your username, it looks great against the dark grey background of dark mode, but is completely unreadable on the white background of light mode.

Re: Discord's new UX design is harmful to the visually impaired and colorblind

#98
post #64
post #10

The language here rubs me the wrong way. Everything is stated as being "incredibly harmful" with no explanation beyond > ...directly harms visually impaired individuals due to lack of visual clarity. I am also not sure how "Elements lack unity" is related to the UI causing harm. I don't use discord, so I have no idea how good the UI is. If the UI is bad and hard for the visually impaired to use, there is definitely a…

"actively" and "directly" really are the new "literally". Seriously, what is it to be actively ableist as opposed to passively ableist? Are words just emotional signifiers now? Exaggeration has become the bare minimum for getting your point across. EDIT: don't get me started on "blatantly"

It's YouTube Face, except written.
Post reply on HN