3 ms·

More importantly, accessibility is hard and complicated. There aren't good tools for collaboratively captioning videos ala a Google Doc. ARIA is a massively co

by cbhl 9y ago

More importantly, accessibility is hard and complicated. There aren't good tools for collaboratively captioning videos ala a Google Doc. ARIA is a massively complicated spec that is much harder than <font color="red"> tags. There are simple and easy tools for making inaccessible content (Flash was a big one). It is much, much harder to make accessible content, and it shouldn't be that way.

tmd83 9y ago
Financial perspective is an issue but this also. Its complicated and its not directly related to your core work/competency. One uses a lot of frameworks/tools to build on top of what if they are accessible and you can't build the thing completely on your own? Its quite to get started to be sure which one is just some regulatory checklist and which ones actually matter. I have trying to be knowledgeable on this but compared to normal web development informations are both sparse and harder to grok. And its also much harder to test/validate than just checking if my script/css is working/looking right. I have done very little screenreader tests but it somethings they are terribly good at working through and some things break too easily. It might make perfect sense for an accessibility expert but can be very non-intuitive for a regular developer.
falcolas 9y ago
Perfect compliance with Sccessibility can be hard and complicated; but have another look at the original article. The things being asked for are not hard or complicated. Making no effort just because a perfect effort would be hard comes across as a cop out. Would we accept this so easily if we were discussing testing?
- cbhl 9y ago
  If you can push back on $BOSS, certainly. But, frankly, it's way too easy to make inaccessible content. It should be impossible to make inaccessible content. We could have browsers and/or compilers that just break the whole page if it isn't accessible.
- vacri 9y ago
  I dunno, satisfying both "not low contrast" and "not bright colour schemes" together, along with a good design in general, requires a moderate amount of knowledge. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be done, but the idea that it's effortless is simply not true.

by cbhl 9y ago

tmd83 9y ago

Financial perspective is an issue but this also. Its complicated and its not directly related to your core work/competency. One uses a lot of frameworks/tools to build on top of what if they are accessible and you can't build the thing completely on your own? Its quite to get started to be sure which one is just some regulatory checklist and which ones actually matter. I have trying to be knowledgeable on this but compared to normal web development informations are both sparse and harder to grok. And its also much harder to test/validate than just checking if my script/css is working/looking right. I have done very little screenreader tests but it somethings they are terribly good at working through and some things break too easily. It might make perfect sense for an accessibility expert but can be very non-intuitive for a regular developer.

falcolas 9y ago

Perfect compliance with Sccessibility can be hard and complicated; but have another look at the original article. The things being asked for are not hard or complicated. Making no effort just because a perfect effort would be hard comes across as a cop out. Would we accept this so easily if we were discussing testing?

cbhl 9y ago
If you can push back on $BOSS, certainly. But, frankly, it's way too easy to make inaccessible content. It should be impossible to make inaccessible content. We could have browsers and/or compilers that just break the whole page if it isn't accessible.
vacri 9y ago
I dunno, satisfying both "not low contrast" and "not bright colour schemes" together, along with a good design in general, requires a moderate amount of knowledge. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be done, but the idea that it's effortless is simply not true.