8 ms·

The provided usage example is bad for accessibility: the name of the icon, e.g. ”check_circle”, will be announced by screen readers. If there is other contextua

The provided usage example is bad for accessibility: the name of the icon, e.g. ”check_circle”, will be announced by screen readers. If there is other contextual information that explains the icon, the icon can be hidden from screen readers using aria-hidden=”true”. However, in cases where the icon appears stand-alone, it needs to contain a human-understandable text that explains its meaning. Also, never use Google’s CDN for loading fonts or icons — always self-host them. The CDNs are used to track your users.

charcircuit 6y ago
>However, in cases where the icon appears stand-alone, it needs to contain a human-understandable text that explains its meaning. Why? It's the screen reader's job to inform users of what's on their screens. It's not my job to give descriptions to things. >The CDNs are used to track your users. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  As a web developer, it literally is your only job to make a website that is usable by people.
  - adflux 6y ago
    By which people? I think thats up to the developer to decide.
    - monsieurbanana 6y ago
      1. Not always 2. Obviously mostly yes, but in hn people just assume that you're a somewhat good person who wouldn't knowingly restraint internet access to people with disabilities
    - thinkxl 6y ago
      Of course that's up for the developer to decide. You can't force a developer to make a website accessible to all people regarding of their capabilities. But you have to remember the initial goal of why the Internet started as open and what was the initial goal, to make all information accessible to everyone, that's why accessibility standards were there since the beginning. That was the entire goal of the web, to be open and accessible to EVERYONE. But if you want to go full head on capitalism and argue it doesn't matter for business, accessibility is literally search engine optimization, which is great for business. Googlebot is blind and doesn't use a mouse to surf the web. From any perspective Accessibility is a requirements for any website or web application. Of course, nobody can force developers to make websites accessible. Wait, yeah they can: * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-dominos-pizza/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-dominos-bid-to-avoid-disabilities-suit-idUSKBN1WM1P1 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-dominos-pizza/u...
    - Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
      If you are making web sites for public use, the law disagrees with you.
    - bigfudge 6y ago
      No - in most western countries it's decided in law that reasonable efforts should be made to support most people, those with disabilities like visual impairment included.
  - charcircuit 6y ago
    I design websites that are to be used with primarily desktop screens. If you want to use an unsupported configuration such as a tiny screen or with no screen then it is not my fault if it does not work well. Similarly, if I make a VR game I am not going to design it in a way that makes creating a pancake version of the game easier to use. If someone does create a pancake mod for the game, they should not complain about how weird the controls are or how they can only use one hand. They should take those issues up with the pancake mom developer and not with me. If people find it hard to use my website through a screen reader then they should complain to the screen reader developer to improve it. It's not my fault if there software sucks at what it is trying to do.
    - matsemann 6y ago
      > I design websites that are to be used with primarily desktop screens. If you want to use an unsupported configuration such as a tiny screen or with no screen then it is not my fault if it does not work well. In lots of countries you are obliged to make the site accessible for what you call "unsupported configurations". E.g screen readers, heavily zoomed sites etc. So yes, it will be your fault, and you are liable for what you deliver. If you're a professional web developer, this should be known.
      - charcircuit 6y ago
        Sure, throw me in jail for not wanting to waste my time developing stuff I have no use for in websites that are freely accessible. If countries want me to develop and support stuff that I don't want to they should pay me for it.
        matsemann 6y ago
        Again, assuming you're a professional that's just part of the job. So you will get paid for it, just include it in the estimates/your quotes. It's not optional. And really, it's not that hard to do..
    - hunter2_ 6y ago
      VR versus pancake typically has nothing to do with disabilities. Display versus screen reader does. It's fine to exclude people who can choose to be included, but it's good to avoid exclusion when choice is not part of the equation. If you're talking about building something that couldn't possibly be of any use to a blind person, that's one thing, but most websites do not fall into that category.
- SquareWheel 6y ago
  > Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Seems they have request logs and publish the aggregate statistics. There's no indication of tracking otherwise. > Google Fonts logs records of the CSS and the font file requests, and access to this data is kept secure. Aggregate usage numbers track how popular font families are, and are published on our analytics page. We use data from Google’s web crawler to detect which websites use Google fonts. This data is published and accessible in the Google Fonts BigQuery database. https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_does_using_the_google_fonts_api_mean_for_the_privacy_of_my_users https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_does_using_the_...
corty 6y ago
And special-purpose-font/script CDNs don't improve load times any more because browser caches are partitioned by domain nowadays. So using a CDN for fonts or scripts just increases your downtime probability and your GDPR headaches.
- EveYoung 6y ago
  I guess it depends on where you're currently hosting your site and if you're using a CDN already. For smaller/private projects, a potential downtime of Google's CDN and GDPR are probably not too much of a concern.
laurent92 6y ago
“Check-circle” is exactly the amount of information that the able reader has. Sight-deficient users are as much used to those weird words as able users are used to unintelligible icons.
- eurasiantiger 6y ago
  No. A sighted user can perceive the placement of the icon within its context, e.g. a checked circle within a row in a table, and deduce that it represents confirmation of whatever information the column of the table represents in the context of the row. This information is not available to a screen reader user unless the visually hidden text makes it explicitly available to them. By the way, your comment shows an ableist bias: an analogous assumption would be that a person who cannot walk is content because they are used to a wheelchair.
- hunter2_ 6y ago
  If the image stands alone such that sighted users must parse it, then your logic is correct. But if the image is merely decorative due to adjacent text such that sighted users gloss over the image, aria-hidden affords users of screen readers that exact same efficiency instead of wasting their time. In other words, eyes can skip over decorations without the developer needing to flag them as such, but audio can't auto-skip.
  - antpls 6y ago
    Wouldn't it make more sense to have everything "hidden" by default and have an explicit "aria-include" ?
    - hunter2_ 6y ago
      All text being skipped unless the author tags it for inclusion doesn't seem like a failsafe default, assuming that excessive information is generally preferred over insufficient information.
- greggturkington 6y ago
eek04_ 6y ago
> Also, never use Google’s CDN for loading fonts or icons — always self-host them. The CDNs are used to track your users. Any evidence of this claim? Also, given that the Google CDNs allow caching for 24h, it seems extremely ineffective even if it was done.
- legitster 6y ago
  Yeah, seconding this. The main benefit of using a Google CDN is that there is a huge chance it's already cached on the client device. Which would mean that there is less useful tracking information.
  - pocketgrok 6y ago
    Browsers are moving to block cross-site caching though. https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/26/supercookie-protections/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/26/supercookie-pro...
panarky 6y ago
> The CDNs are used to track your users Is there evidence of this or is it just your conjecture?

charcircuit 6y ago

>However, in cases where the icon appears stand-alone, it needs to contain a human-understandable text that explains its meaning. Why? It's the screen reader's job to inform users of what's on their screens. It's not my job to give descriptions to things. >The CDNs are used to track your users. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

madeofpalk 6y ago
As a web developer, it literally is your only job to make a website that is usable by people.
- adflux 6y ago
  By which people? I think thats up to the developer to decide.
  - monsieurbanana 6y ago
    1. Not always 2. Obviously mostly yes, but in hn people just assume that you're a somewhat good person who wouldn't knowingly restraint internet access to people with disabilities
  - thinkxl 6y ago
    Of course that's up for the developer to decide. You can't force a developer to make a website accessible to all people regarding of their capabilities. But you have to remember the initial goal of why the Internet started as open and what was the initial goal, to make all information accessible to everyone, that's why accessibility standards were there since the beginning. That was the entire goal of the web, to be open and accessible to EVERYONE. But if you want to go full head on capitalism and argue it doesn't matter for business, accessibility is literally search engine optimization, which is great for business. Googlebot is blind and doesn't use a mouse to surf the web. From any perspective Accessibility is a requirements for any website or web application. Of course, nobody can force developers to make websites accessible. Wait, yeah they can: * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-dominos-pizza/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-dominos-bid-to-avoid-disabilities-suit-idUSKBN1WM1P1 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-dominos-pizza/u...
  - Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
    If you are making web sites for public use, the law disagrees with you.
  - bigfudge 6y ago
    No - in most western countries it's decided in law that reasonable efforts should be made to support most people, those with disabilities like visual impairment included.
- charcircuit 6y ago
  I design websites that are to be used with primarily desktop screens. If you want to use an unsupported configuration such as a tiny screen or with no screen then it is not my fault if it does not work well. Similarly, if I make a VR game I am not going to design it in a way that makes creating a pancake version of the game easier to use. If someone does create a pancake mod for the game, they should not complain about how weird the controls are or how they can only use one hand. They should take those issues up with the pancake mom developer and not with me. If people find it hard to use my website through a screen reader then they should complain to the screen reader developer to improve it. It's not my fault if there software sucks at what it is trying to do.
  - matsemann 6y ago
    > I design websites that are to be used with primarily desktop screens. If you want to use an unsupported configuration such as a tiny screen or with no screen then it is not my fault if it does not work well. In lots of countries you are obliged to make the site accessible for what you call "unsupported configurations". E.g screen readers, heavily zoomed sites etc. So yes, it will be your fault, and you are liable for what you deliver. If you're a professional web developer, this should be known.
    - charcircuit 6y ago
      Sure, throw me in jail for not wanting to waste my time developing stuff I have no use for in websites that are freely accessible. If countries want me to develop and support stuff that I don't want to they should pay me for it.
      - matsemann 6y ago
        Again, assuming you're a professional that's just part of the job. So you will get paid for it, just include it in the estimates/your quotes. It's not optional. And really, it's not that hard to do..
  - hunter2_ 6y ago
    VR versus pancake typically has nothing to do with disabilities. Display versus screen reader does. It's fine to exclude people who can choose to be included, but it's good to avoid exclusion when choice is not part of the equation. If you're talking about building something that couldn't possibly be of any use to a blind person, that's one thing, but most websites do not fall into that category.
SquareWheel 6y ago
> Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Seems they have request logs and publish the aggregate statistics. There's no indication of tracking otherwise. > Google Fonts logs records of the CSS and the font file requests, and access to this data is kept secure. Aggregate usage numbers track how popular font families are, and are published on our analytics page. We use data from Google’s web crawler to detect which websites use Google fonts. This data is published and accessible in the Google Fonts BigQuery database. https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_does_using_the_google_fonts_api_mean_for_the_privacy_of_my_users https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_does_using_the_...

corty 6y ago

And special-purpose-font/script CDNs don't improve load times any more because browser caches are partitioned by domain nowadays. So using a CDN for fonts or scripts just increases your downtime probability and your GDPR headaches.

EveYoung 6y ago
I guess it depends on where you're currently hosting your site and if you're using a CDN already. For smaller/private projects, a potential downtime of Google's CDN and GDPR are probably not too much of a concern.

laurent92 6y ago

“Check-circle” is exactly the amount of information that the able reader has. Sight-deficient users are as much used to those weird words as able users are used to unintelligible icons.

eurasiantiger 6y ago
No. A sighted user can perceive the placement of the icon within its context, e.g. a checked circle within a row in a table, and deduce that it represents confirmation of whatever information the column of the table represents in the context of the row. This information is not available to a screen reader user unless the visually hidden text makes it explicitly available to them. By the way, your comment shows an ableist bias: an analogous assumption would be that a person who cannot walk is content because they are used to a wheelchair.
hunter2_ 6y ago
If the image stands alone such that sighted users must parse it, then your logic is correct. But if the image is merely decorative due to adjacent text such that sighted users gloss over the image, aria-hidden affords users of screen readers that exact same efficiency instead of wasting their time. In other words, eyes can skip over decorations without the developer needing to flag them as such, but audio can't auto-skip.
- antpls 6y ago
  Wouldn't it make more sense to have everything "hidden" by default and have an explicit "aria-include" ?
  - hunter2_ 6y ago
    All text being skipped unless the author tags it for inclusion doesn't seem like a failsafe default, assuming that excessive information is generally preferred over insufficient information.
greggturkington 6y ago

eek04_ 6y ago

> Also, never use Google’s CDN for loading fonts or icons — always self-host them. The CDNs are used to track your users. Any evidence of this claim? Also, given that the Google CDNs allow caching for 24h, it seems extremely ineffective even if it was done.

legitster 6y ago
Yeah, seconding this. The main benefit of using a Google CDN is that there is a huge chance it's already cached on the client device. Which would mean that there is less useful tracking information.
- pocketgrok 6y ago
  Browsers are moving to block cross-site caching though. https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/26/supercookie-protections/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/26/supercookie-pro...

panarky 6y ago

> The CDNs are used to track your users Is there evidence of this or is it just your conjecture?