4 ms·

We want and need to use the websites and applications that our peers are using.

ratww 6y ago
Piggy-backing on your answer, which I also agree with (sorry, parent was flagged): Proper accessibility normally makes websites better for people who don't need accessibility features. At worst it doesn't make a difference. Lack of accessibility normally makes websites worse for everyone.
SilasX 6y ago
I can't seemed to reply to the flagged/dead parent, but -- despite the harsh language -- it's actually an insightful question with a good answer, one which (IMHO) I gave before [1]. Basically, regular HTML was the language for the blind! It has everything, by design, that the blind should need to access all their content with a screen reader. Then, they bolted on stuff that broke that use case. So, even if we did come up with a separate language, we would need to prevent it from having the same things happen to it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20225291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20225291
- mwcampbell 6y ago
  > it's actually an insightful question How so? I replied because I didn't want to pass on an opportunity to advocate for equal access, and I thought the person asking that question might be genuinely ignorant, e.g. growing up in a culture where it goes without saying that people with disabilities are outcasts. In other words, I wanted to be charitable and not write them off as a troll. But I don't see how it's an insightful question.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    "Insightful" is going to be subjective, but I would say it's insightful enough to be worth addressing, why not have separate websites for the different audiences, since they have different needs. The parent of my linked comment said it in a less trollish, not-obviously-false manner: >My question is why use the web at all? Surely there's an easier way for a blind person to access an information or send data to an API than through an HTML web page. Totally agree on the general importance of accessibility.
    - mwcampbell 6y ago
      Ah yes, the other question you quoted is much better. And in fact, when protocols/APIs for things like IM and social networks were more open, alternative clients were developed, including ones for blind people. (I developed one such client myself.) The important thing is having access to the same information and services. It's perhaps unfortunate that in most cases that has to be done through retrofitted access to the same UI that sighted people use.

Piggy-backing on your answer, which I also agree with (sorry, parent was flagged): Proper accessibility normally makes websites better for people who don't need accessibility features. At worst it doesn't make a difference. Lack of accessibility normally makes websites worse for everyone.

SilasX 6y ago

I can't seemed to reply to the flagged/dead parent, but -- despite the harsh language -- it's actually an insightful question with a good answer, one which (IMHO) I gave before [1]. Basically, regular HTML was the language for the blind! It has everything, by design, that the blind should need to access all their content with a screen reader. Then, they bolted on stuff that broke that use case. So, even if we did come up with a separate language, we would need to prevent it from having the same things happen to it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20225291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20225291

mwcampbell 6y ago
> it's actually an insightful question How so? I replied because I didn't want to pass on an opportunity to advocate for equal access, and I thought the person asking that question might be genuinely ignorant, e.g. growing up in a culture where it goes without saying that people with disabilities are outcasts. In other words, I wanted to be charitable and not write them off as a troll. But I don't see how it's an insightful question.
- SilasX 6y ago
  "Insightful" is going to be subjective, but I would say it's insightful enough to be worth addressing, why not have separate websites for the different audiences, since they have different needs. The parent of my linked comment said it in a less trollish, not-obviously-false manner: >My question is why use the web at all? Surely there's an easier way for a blind person to access an information or send data to an API than through an HTML web page. Totally agree on the general importance of accessibility.
  - mwcampbell 6y ago
    Ah yes, the other question you quoted is much better. And in fact, when protocols/APIs for things like IM and social networks were more open, alternative clients were developed, including ones for blind people. (I developed one such client myself.) The important thing is having access to the same information and services. It's perhaps unfortunate that in most cases that has to be done through retrofitted access to the same UI that sighted people use.