3 ms·
I agree with all your points. However, Big Sur is going to be very, very, very bad accessibility-wise. The entire interface is washed out. There's little to no
by dmitriid 6y ago
I agree with all your points. However, Big Sur is going to be very, very, very bad accessibility-wise.
The entire interface is washed out. There's little to no distinction between selected items. Translucency breaks readability of text. And so on and so forth.
Some examples:
- https://twitter.com/krzyzanowskim/status/1275469783488696323 https://twitter.com/krzyzanowskim/status/1275469783488696323
- https://twitter.com/lunasorcery/status/1275237073625198592 https://twitter.com/lunasorcery/status/1275237073625198592
- https://twitter.com/Freerunnering/status/1275832747895009283 https://twitter.com/Freerunnering/status/1275832747895009283
- lotsofpulp 6y agoOne would think hundreds of thousands of dollars per year would buy people with a few critical thinking skills. The second example is unforgivable.
- lioeters 6y agoOof, that was painful. Not only is the low contrast bad for accessibility, the unbalanced X paddings are just wrong.. Something must be amiss in their QA if this was allowed to reach public release.
- jdhn 6y agoThere's no way that second screenshot is WCAG 2.0 contrast compliant.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoI'm sure Apple's response is that you can turn on high contrast mode in accessibility settings. ...and my problem with that argument is that high contrast mode looks aesthetically terrible. So basically, only people with great eyesight get to appreciate aesthetically-pleasing UIs. Obviously, some people just have very bad eyesight, and there comes a point when you need to say "screw aesthetics, here's something you can actually see." But, the less people who need to resort to that, the better.