5 ms·

That is why Apple provides an accessibility panel in system settings.

derefr 6y ago
Normally, yes; but sometimes the change required to help one group doesn't hinder anyone else, and also is very hard to automatically derive the "accessible" version of the UX in a way that doesn't cause more harm than help (by e.g. accidentally pushing critical buttons out of visibility into a slide menu; or breaking a menu onto two lines such that there's less viewport left than originally designed for at minimum height.) In such cases, it makes a lot of sense to just give the change to everybody, so that you can design the UX once, with the change in place. See also: modern TV shows and films that make sure to not put anything important where closed-captions would appear—they're designing once, assuming captioning.
- userbinator 6y ago
  doesn't hinder anyone else Complete BS --- it absolutely slows down those who don't need elephantine UI elements to use a computer.
  - derefr 6y ago
    In this particular case, the new design is just trading element-internal padding for inter-element margin or element-group margin. The total space that each element-group takes up is the same. The only change is that more of the previously "dead space" around each element is now clickable, because it's now considered an internal part of the element. It's a bit like making the UI into a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronoi_diagram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronoi_diagram — any area on the UI chrome becomes "associated" with the nearest interactive element. Like I said, I don't see how that hinders anyone.
    - AlexandrB 6y ago
      I don't understand what you're inferring this from. To me it looks like the opposite is happening and dead space around elements is increasing (e.g. see the comparison of finder between 10.16 and 11.0). Edit: It's also quite clear from the comparisons that the number of elements visible on-screen is decreasing because each element is getting larger and the padding between elements is increasing. Edit2: Also, the idea that this UI is more accessible is contradicted by the removal of various visual elements that help separate and differentiate UI elements and the loss of contrast in the UI in general. Visual impairments are much more common than Parkinson's and none of these decisions help with that.
- gowld 6y ago
  > they're designing once, assuming captioning. At the cost of shrinking everyone's effective screen size.
  - derefr 6y ago
    No? They still put stuff down there. Just not critical stuff (e.g. establishing-shot location text, which instead tends to get displayed centered or center-left in modern visual design, since nobody ever sets their captions to the middle.)
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  If you want to make a UI more accessible to people that can't point easily the fix is a mouse with filtering and keyboard UI control, and crucially a way to click without moving the mouse. Not making the buttons slightly bigger.

Normally, yes; but sometimes the change required to help one group doesn't hinder anyone else, and also is very hard to automatically derive the "accessible" version of the UX in a way that doesn't cause more harm than help (by e.g. accidentally pushing critical buttons out of visibility into a slide menu; or breaking a menu onto two lines such that there's less viewport left than originally designed for at minimum height.) In such cases, it makes a lot of sense to just give the change to everybody, so that you can design the UX once, with the change in place. See also: modern TV shows and films that make sure to not put anything important where closed-captions would appear—they're designing once, assuming captioning.

userbinator 6y ago
doesn't hinder anyone else Complete BS --- it absolutely slows down those who don't need elephantine UI elements to use a computer.
- derefr 6y ago
  In this particular case, the new design is just trading element-internal padding for inter-element margin or element-group margin. The total space that each element-group takes up is the same. The only change is that more of the previously "dead space" around each element is now clickable, because it's now considered an internal part of the element. It's a bit like making the UI into a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronoi_diagram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronoi_diagram — any area on the UI chrome becomes "associated" with the nearest interactive element. Like I said, I don't see how that hinders anyone.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    I don't understand what you're inferring this from. To me it looks like the opposite is happening and dead space around elements is increasing (e.g. see the comparison of finder between 10.16 and 11.0). Edit: It's also quite clear from the comparisons that the number of elements visible on-screen is decreasing because each element is getting larger and the padding between elements is increasing. Edit2: Also, the idea that this UI is more accessible is contradicted by the removal of various visual elements that help separate and differentiate UI elements and the loss of contrast in the UI in general. Visual impairments are much more common than Parkinson's and none of these decisions help with that.
gowld 6y ago
> they're designing once, assuming captioning. At the cost of shrinking everyone's effective screen size.
- derefr 6y ago
  No? They still put stuff down there. Just not critical stuff (e.g. establishing-shot location text, which instead tends to get displayed centered or center-left in modern visual design, since nobody ever sets their captions to the middle.)
sudosysgen 6y ago
If you want to make a UI more accessible to people that can't point easily the fix is a mouse with filtering and keyboard UI control, and crucially a way to click without moving the mouse. Not making the buttons slightly bigger.