3 ms·

Adhering to HTML spec does not by default make a fully accessible website. White text on a white background adheres to the spec but no one can see it. If you me

Adhering to HTML spec does not by default make a fully accessible website. White text on a white background adheres to the spec but no one can see it. If you mean adhereing to something like WCAG then that is a premium since it requires things like aria attributes, balancing contrasting colors for foreground and background and a whole slew of other things. Isn't it my job as a professional to tell my clients what I am doing and how much it will cost them? Isn't it my job to also explain the importance of these line items? I do this task. Isn't it my client's professional job to then take that information, process it and see how those line items affect their bottom line? If accessibility for the blind on an Aircraft Pilot app website for Pilots who need vision to have that job and use the app is then excluded is this a moral failing on my part or the clients fault? I would say no in both cases, they have literally zero visitors who are blind visiting their website.

Grumbledour 8y ago
Your arguments seems reasonable and I heard it before, but I am not really convinced it strikes to the heart of the matter. Accessibility does include more than the HTML Spec, but adherence to the spec already provides a huge chunk of accessibility for free. And I don't feel every website needs to be 100% accessible, but people complaining about lacking accessibility often do so because developers disregard good practices and common sense. Yes, bad contrast is bad, but most disabled users know ways to fix this minor issue[0], but needing js to dynamically load basic text and image content that a screen reader than struggles with is just inexcusable and gets to the hearth of the issue, that ignoring accessibility also often means ignoring different user Plattforms and usage. A finely crafted website is not only readable by a modern browser and a screen reader, it will also very probably mostly work on older browsers, minor browsers/operating systems and so on. So every developer should have accessibility in mind when creating websites. Of course, being competitive, a shoddy developer who just bangs two wordpress themes together will always be cheaper than good craftsmanship, but in my experience, the problem is more often targeting the wrong clients anyway. [0] And, as sad is this is, the actual design is often not the developers responsibility, unless of course, when it is, in which case he is also to blame. ;-)
- overshard 8y ago
  I agree with you, my only point is that accessibility costs something. It either costs time and money if you want to adhere to some standard like WCAG, it costs in hiring a better designer who doesn't make inaccessible design choices and understands basics like contrast ratios, and/or it costs in hiring a developer who has enough experience and common sense to know what is accessible and what isn't. Accessibility costs time and money, there is no way around this. Not all companies want to pay that money. I don't think the entirety of the blame can be placed on developers.
  - Grumbledour 8y ago
    You are right, it is not entirely free. I do see a baseline accessibility as necessary to call yourself a competent developer though. And you are right, a competent developer costs more than a bad one. But we are a community of developers here who, i would assume, think of themselves as competent. Should we not strife for a certain baseline standard instead of partaking in a race to the bottom? In the end, there is always someone that does a bad job cheaper than we can. I know there are often economical circumstances and we all cut corners one time or another, but we as the knowledgeable developers must be the one to educate the clients and put in the work, because no one else will.

Grumbledour 8y ago

Your arguments seems reasonable and I heard it before, but I am not really convinced it strikes to the heart of the matter. Accessibility does include more than the HTML Spec, but adherence to the spec already provides a huge chunk of accessibility for free. And I don't feel every website needs to be 100% accessible, but people complaining about lacking accessibility often do so because developers disregard good practices and common sense. Yes, bad contrast is bad, but most disabled users know ways to fix this minor issue[0], but needing js to dynamically load basic text and image content that a screen reader than struggles with is just inexcusable and gets to the hearth of the issue, that ignoring accessibility also often means ignoring different user Plattforms and usage. A finely crafted website is not only readable by a modern browser and a screen reader, it will also very probably mostly work on older browsers, minor browsers/operating systems and so on. So every developer should have accessibility in mind when creating websites. Of course, being competitive, a shoddy developer who just bangs two wordpress themes together will always be cheaper than good craftsmanship, but in my experience, the problem is more often targeting the wrong clients anyway. [0] And, as sad is this is, the actual design is often not the developers responsibility, unless of course, when it is, in which case he is also to blame. ;-)

overshard 8y ago
I agree with you, my only point is that accessibility costs something. It either costs time and money if you want to adhere to some standard like WCAG, it costs in hiring a better designer who doesn't make inaccessible design choices and understands basics like contrast ratios, and/or it costs in hiring a developer who has enough experience and common sense to know what is accessible and what isn't. Accessibility costs time and money, there is no way around this. Not all companies want to pay that money. I don't think the entirety of the blame can be placed on developers.
- Grumbledour 8y ago
  You are right, it is not entirely free. I do see a baseline accessibility as necessary to call yourself a competent developer though. And you are right, a competent developer costs more than a bad one. But we are a community of developers here who, i would assume, think of themselves as competent. Should we not strife for a certain baseline standard instead of partaking in a race to the bottom? In the end, there is always someone that does a bad job cheaper than we can. I know there are often economical circumstances and we all cut corners one time or another, but we as the knowledgeable developers must be the one to educate the clients and put in the work, because no one else will.