4 ms·

> and when it comes to accessibility questions, the chief concern isn't necessarily whether everyone uses it. I wish more developers had your perspective. My

> and when it comes to accessibility questions, the chief concern isn't necessarily whether everyone uses it. I wish more developers had your perspective. My Dad uses Windows' high contrast mode. It's less that "literal dozens" use this feature and more that this feature transforms all that desktop-shaped-material into a computer for the vision impaired. Isn't the biggest performance enhancement the transition from not-working to working? I view accessibility as the ultimate performance enhancement for a given slice of users.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Some companies care. Most don't. Unless a feature is used by double-digit percentage of users, it'll be axed. It's a sad reality of today, and no, I don't buy the arguments about saving development time, not when said by the same people who also say they want to deliver value to users (as opposed to extract value from them). Because somehow, feature cancellation always seems to touch the features that enable users to unbreak things or optimize their experience.
- zeroname 8y ago
  Delivering value to only 0.1% of users is equal to taking away value from the other 99.9% of users. You're not strictly saving development time, you're reallocating it to better utility. Now, if those 0.1% of users have some sort of legitimate accessibility issue, we can talk about it. If they just have highly idiosyncratic preferences about their user experience, the axe it shall be.
  - wwweston 8y ago
    I'm not sure 0.1% is an accurate reflection of the portion of users with some accessibility issues. Moreover, whatever the portion of users who currently have accessibility issues is, the portion who will have some is much much larger. Finally: human accessibility frequently seems to dovetail with machine accessibility. Engineering done with accessibility in mind seems to be less likely to result in silos and more likely to present an interface more amenable to automated interaction.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Some companies care. Most don't. Unless a feature is used by double-digit percentage of users, it'll be axed. It's a sad reality of today, and no, I don't buy the arguments about saving development time, not when said by the same people who also say they want to deliver value to users (as opposed to extract value from them). Because somehow, feature cancellation always seems to touch the features that enable users to unbreak things or optimize their experience.

zeroname 8y ago
Delivering value to only 0.1% of users is equal to taking away value from the other 99.9% of users. You're not strictly saving development time, you're reallocating it to better utility. Now, if those 0.1% of users have some sort of legitimate accessibility issue, we can talk about it. If they just have highly idiosyncratic preferences about their user experience, the axe it shall be.
- wwweston 8y ago
  I'm not sure 0.1% is an accurate reflection of the portion of users with some accessibility issues. Moreover, whatever the portion of users who currently have accessibility issues is, the portion who will have some is much much larger. Finally: human accessibility frequently seems to dovetail with machine accessibility. Engineering done with accessibility in mind seems to be less likely to result in silos and more likely to present an interface more amenable to automated interaction.