4 ms·

This seems like a hard job then. If we adjust the site to make it accessible for you, then we might make it less accessible for me. Maybe that’s why CSS was or

This seems like a hard job then. If we adjust the site to make it accessible for you, then we might make it less accessible for me. Maybe that’s why CSS was originally made to be overridden client side, so everyone can make their own choices about font and background.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
> This seems like a hard job then. If we adjust the site to make it accessible for you, then we might make it less accessible for me. I don’t think it works like that. Generally speaking most people with good or limited vision share the luminance spectrum and portions of the color spectrum. Increasing contrast doesn’t hurt anyone (though dark mode users generally prefer slightly lower contrast for lower luminance overall). Increasing type size doesn’t hurt anyone but might make HN users complain about information density. > Maybe that’s why CSS was originally made to be overridden client side, so everyone can make their own choices about font and background. It still can be! In fact it’s standardized in web extensions. As an example you can try my HNDarkMode theme on my GitHub (same handle).
- gugagore 6y ago
  > I don’t think it works like that. Generally speaking most people with good or limited vision share the luminance spectrum and portions of the color spectrum. Increasing contrast doesn’t hurt anyone (though dark mode users generally prefer slightly lower contrast for lower luminance overall). Increasing type size doesn’t hurt anyone but might make HN users complain about information density. I think there's enough human variation that it can be hard to say anything general like this. Setting aside the semantic debate about what is a disability, or what is accessibility, let me take for granted that "attention disorder" is a thing and anything that anything that distracts a reader could hurt. It is hard to determine flat-out which complaints are valid. I like to watch captioned content. Others find it distracting, or hate having the punchline to a joke come early (usually due to bad captioning!). I am hearing and AFAIK don't have an audio-processing disorder. I don't "need" captions, otherwise it would probably be a clear case of definitely my needs override someone who just doesn't "want" captions. But that's also another semantic debate. I don't think that should be used as an argument for not trying to improve accessibility in the first place. But it certainly is something to continually improve.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    > "attention disorder" is a thing and anything that distracts a reader could hurt. This is true and I have ADHD so I can speak to it from experience, although not for everyone with ADHD of course. At least for me, motion is far more distracting than contrast as such. The places where contrast may distract me tend to be places where there are already accessibility issues for people with color blindness. You’re right to say I’ve overgeneralized a bit. But for the vast majority of people with vision suitable enough for them to choose to read, the things I said tend to be true. > I don't think that should be used as an argument for not trying to improve accessibility in the first place. But it certainly is something to continually improve. Full agree here!
gugagore 6y ago
> If we adjust the site to make it accessible for you, then we might make it less accessible for me. Yeah, this is certainly possible. A physical manifestation of this is how curb cuts for improving accessibility for wheelchair users on their own reduce accessibility for people with low vision who no longer have a clear demarcation between the sidewalk and the road (where there is automobile traffic). That's where tactile paving comes in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactile_paving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactile_paving one name for this general principle is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design . Users making choices about font and background is a good example.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

> This seems like a hard job then. If we adjust the site to make it accessible for you, then we might make it less accessible for me. I don’t think it works like that. Generally speaking most people with good or limited vision share the luminance spectrum and portions of the color spectrum. Increasing contrast doesn’t hurt anyone (though dark mode users generally prefer slightly lower contrast for lower luminance overall). Increasing type size doesn’t hurt anyone but might make HN users complain about information density. > Maybe that’s why CSS was originally made to be overridden client side, so everyone can make their own choices about font and background. It still can be! In fact it’s standardized in web extensions. As an example you can try my HNDarkMode theme on my GitHub (same handle).

gugagore 6y ago
> I don’t think it works like that. Generally speaking most people with good or limited vision share the luminance spectrum and portions of the color spectrum. Increasing contrast doesn’t hurt anyone (though dark mode users generally prefer slightly lower contrast for lower luminance overall). Increasing type size doesn’t hurt anyone but might make HN users complain about information density. I think there's enough human variation that it can be hard to say anything general like this. Setting aside the semantic debate about what is a disability, or what is accessibility, let me take for granted that "attention disorder" is a thing and anything that anything that distracts a reader could hurt. It is hard to determine flat-out which complaints are valid. I like to watch captioned content. Others find it distracting, or hate having the punchline to a joke come early (usually due to bad captioning!). I am hearing and AFAIK don't have an audio-processing disorder. I don't "need" captions, otherwise it would probably be a clear case of definitely my needs override someone who just doesn't "want" captions. But that's also another semantic debate. I don't think that should be used as an argument for not trying to improve accessibility in the first place. But it certainly is something to continually improve.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > "attention disorder" is a thing and anything that distracts a reader could hurt. This is true and I have ADHD so I can speak to it from experience, although not for everyone with ADHD of course. At least for me, motion is far more distracting than contrast as such. The places where contrast may distract me tend to be places where there are already accessibility issues for people with color blindness. You’re right to say I’ve overgeneralized a bit. But for the vast majority of people with vision suitable enough for them to choose to read, the things I said tend to be true. > I don't think that should be used as an argument for not trying to improve accessibility in the first place. But it certainly is something to continually improve. Full agree here!

gugagore 6y ago

> If we adjust the site to make it accessible for you, then we might make it less accessible for me. Yeah, this is certainly possible. A physical manifestation of this is how curb cuts for improving accessibility for wheelchair users on their own reduce accessibility for people with low vision who no longer have a clear demarcation between the sidewalk and the road (where there is automobile traffic). That's where tactile paving comes in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactile_paving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactile_paving one name for this general principle is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design . Users making choices about font and background is a good example.