3 ms·

Yes, exactly. And many such impairments will not prevent you benefitting from layout, colors, typography, images, and sundry other kinds of graphical trickery.

austincheney 8y ago
Sounds like you are confusing non-blindness for normal functionality. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a page for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment The idea of accessibility is that a product/service is available to a wide audience regardless of their physical/cognitive impairment. It is still discriminatory if some user might be capable of enjoying visual eye candy if they must struggle to do so due to an impairment and are denied access to that content otherwise.
- shawnz 8y ago
  I don't think you are understanding the parent correctly. They are saying a person with a partial visual impairment can still benefit from a well-designed visual page layout, because a person with partial visual impairment might still use vision in some ways. So well-designed CSS and images DO benefit those individuals. You seem to be implying that anyone with a visual impairment, even a partial one, would prefer to browse with CSS and images off. But that's not necessarily the case.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    What does that have to do with accessibility? > You seem to be implying that anyone with a visual impairment, even a partial one I am not. Well written CSS, a subset of usability, is irrelevant to accessibility.
    - shawnz 8y ago
      > Well written CSS, a subset of usability, is irrelevant to accessibility. Says who? https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-usability-inclusion/#accessible-usable https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-usability-... > There is a significant overlap between accessibility and usability. ISO 9241-11, defines usability as: The “extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals effectively, efficiently and with satisfaction in a specified context of use”. This could address accessibility when: “specified users” includes people with a range of disabilities, and “specified context of use” includes accessibility considerations such as assistive technologies. Let me give an example: If I put icons on my buttons to improve the usability of my app, but the icons break at high zoom levels, then is that accessible? No, but you'd never know unless you do accessibility testing with CSS and images turned on.
      - austincheney 8y ago
        > but the icons break at high zoom levels, then is that accessible? Yes, it is still accessible, but usability is decreased. There are multiple ways to activate a button. Accessibility and usability are not contested or mutually exclusive qualities. You can have both great CSS and great accessibility at the same time.
        shawnz 8y ago
        Bad usability precludes good accessibility. You seem to be implying that accessibility is just about being able to access the content. That's wrong, accessibility is about ease of access to the content. If what you were saying were true, then semantically correct HTML wouldn't be a WCAG requirement. But semantically correct HTML improves usability for people using assistive technologies, thus it is an important part of designing accessible content. Accessibility IS dependent on usability. If just the ability to access the content was the only factor in designing accessible content, then you could just tell your blind clients to view the page source and read it character by character. But obviously that would not be acceptable because it creates a significant barrier for usability that sighted clients would not face. Designing accessible content is about removing barriers that make it harder for people with disabilities to access the content, and bad usability is one of those barriers.
        austincheney 8y ago
        > That's wrong, accessibility is about ease of access to the content. That doesn't account for cognitive disabilities. Ease of access is up to the user-agent software. Accessibility is more than just that. As front end developers we have to provide that content in a meaningful and understandable form without getting in the browser's or screen reader's way. Sometimes that isn't enough and you need to use ARIA to clarify things more precisely. > then you could just tell your blind clients to view the page source and read it character by character. Screen readers provide a variety of navigational tools for drilling into page content. They don't just read text. I am not really sure what you are arguing. You can have great CSS and great accessibility at the same time.

austincheney 8y ago

Sounds like you are confusing non-blindness for normal functionality. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a page for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment The idea of accessibility is that a product/service is available to a wide audience regardless of their physical/cognitive impairment. It is still discriminatory if some user might be capable of enjoying visual eye candy if they must struggle to do so due to an impairment and are denied access to that content otherwise.

shawnz 8y ago
I don't think you are understanding the parent correctly. They are saying a person with a partial visual impairment can still benefit from a well-designed visual page layout, because a person with partial visual impairment might still use vision in some ways. So well-designed CSS and images DO benefit those individuals. You seem to be implying that anyone with a visual impairment, even a partial one, would prefer to browse with CSS and images off. But that's not necessarily the case.
- austincheney 8y ago
  What does that have to do with accessibility? > You seem to be implying that anyone with a visual impairment, even a partial one I am not. Well written CSS, a subset of usability, is irrelevant to accessibility.
  - shawnz 8y ago
    > Well written CSS, a subset of usability, is irrelevant to accessibility. Says who? https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-usability-inclusion/#accessible-usable https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-usability-... > There is a significant overlap between accessibility and usability. ISO 9241-11, defines usability as: The “extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals effectively, efficiently and with satisfaction in a specified context of use”. This could address accessibility when: “specified users” includes people with a range of disabilities, and “specified context of use” includes accessibility considerations such as assistive technologies. Let me give an example: If I put icons on my buttons to improve the usability of my app, but the icons break at high zoom levels, then is that accessible? No, but you'd never know unless you do accessibility testing with CSS and images turned on.
    - austincheney 8y ago
      > but the icons break at high zoom levels, then is that accessible? Yes, it is still accessible, but usability is decreased. There are multiple ways to activate a button. Accessibility and usability are not contested or mutually exclusive qualities. You can have both great CSS and great accessibility at the same time.
      - shawnz 8y ago
        Bad usability precludes good accessibility. You seem to be implying that accessibility is just about being able to access the content. That's wrong, accessibility is about ease of access to the content. If what you were saying were true, then semantically correct HTML wouldn't be a WCAG requirement. But semantically correct HTML improves usability for people using assistive technologies, thus it is an important part of designing accessible content. Accessibility IS dependent on usability. If just the ability to access the content was the only factor in designing accessible content, then you could just tell your blind clients to view the page source and read it character by character. But obviously that would not be acceptable because it creates a significant barrier for usability that sighted clients would not face. Designing accessible content is about removing barriers that make it harder for people with disabilities to access the content, and bad usability is one of those barriers.
        austincheney 8y ago
        > That's wrong, accessibility is about ease of access to the content. That doesn't account for cognitive disabilities. Ease of access is up to the user-agent software. Accessibility is more than just that. As front end developers we have to provide that content in a meaningful and understandable form without getting in the browser's or screen reader's way. Sometimes that isn't enough and you need to use ARIA to clarify things more precisely. > then you could just tell your blind clients to view the page source and read it character by character. Screen readers provide a variety of navigational tools for drilling into page content. They don't just read text. I am not really sure what you are arguing. You can have great CSS and great accessibility at the same time.