2 ms·
Has it been verified with an actual screen reader and an actual partially sighted person? I remember a fair while back there being a distinct mismatch between
by andybak 9y ago
Has it been verified with an actual screen reader and an actual partially sighted person?
I remember a fair while back there being a distinct mismatch between the theory and the reality on the ground. Hardly anyone was actually talking to their intended audience. There was a lot of box ticking.
- nl 9y agoI’ve worked on accessibility tools before and what you say is absolutely true. But unfortunately it’s not worth pointing this out, or daring to think of better ways. I’d note your comment is greyed out, and mine suggestion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16035056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16035056) is way into negative territory. Better to just check boxes I guess.
- jstewartmobile 9y agoText is pretty darn accessible to begin with. That the markup has gotten to the point where deciphering it with AI becomes a serious suggestion is fairly depressing. Perhaps putting the HTML standard on a diet would be a more efficient approach?
- nl 9y agoText isn't - and has never been - the problem. It's navigation, and richer information that just text.
- jstewartmobile 9y agoAre you sure about that? I'm a perfectly able person, yet I've had to roll a number of bookmarklets just to make most sites halfway readable. And Jesus help you if you have to rely on a screen reader for the crazy sites we have today. I think this lady was spot-on in her article, but everyone wants so much control that every website ends up reinventing the wheel, badly.