8 ms·
Discord's new UX design is harmful to the visually impaired and colorblind
- wayneftw 5y agoDoes anyone know which kind of websites and apps are required to implement accessibility? I thought it was only government websites originally but then I looked it up and saw that it's a bit more than that. Is there a simple rule to know when I'm required to do this? (I'm not looking for answers that say: you should always do it because it's a good thing to do. I want to know what the rules are.)
- chris37879 5y agoSo, legally speaking, no website or app is _required_ by the Americans with Disabilites Act (ADA) to be made accessible. Title III of the ADA is the part that deals with public businesses and it doesn't mention digital services at all, but has been interpreted by various courts to include websites, there was a notable case against Dominos about this, wherein the judge ruled that Dominos did, in fact, have to make their online ordering tool fully accessible to people using screen readers, but this was the judge's understanding of the law and hasn't been challenged at a higher court. There's also section 508 of Title II of the ADA that does require government websites to be accessible, but it imposes no such requirements on private businesses. The DOJ apparently was considering a formal guidance on this a few years ago, but it never materialized. Here's a quote from an article I'll link below, this article seems up to date with my knowledge of the matter and I think will help answer most of your questions. (Even if that answer is "lol, who knows"): > ADA legislation as is applies to websites is currently a gray area. This often leaves the interpretation of the law up to the court where the lawsuit is filed, generally a state court. Suits have been filed in every state, though the majority of cases are in New York, Florida, California, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. > > Do all websites have to be ADA compliant? That depends. Courts generally reach one of the following conclusions: > > Yes, a business website is considered a “public accommodation” and must be accessible. > Yes, but only if the business also has a physical location that serves the public. > No, the ADA does not specifically address websites and therefore does not apply. https://www.accessiblemetrics.com/blog/do-all-websites-have-to-be-ada-compliant/ https://www.accessiblemetrics.com/blog/do-all-websites-have-... So, the answer is that there are several good reasons to make your site and/or app accessible: You should do it because it's the right thing to do, it improves your ranking in google (a site that can be screen read can be mechanically crawled easier and is viewed favorably by Google's search algorithm), and there may come a day in the near future where it is mandated. Honestly, I'd recommend reading through the WCAG standards sometime. It's a very well thought out document that lays out pretty straight forward approaches to making your digital content more accessible to users with a wide variety of disabilities. When people think 'accessibility' they often are only thinking about blind or vision impaired users, but there's so much more to it than that, and a lot of what you do as you build an app or site affects accessibility, whether you know it or not. Dyslexic people have issues with some fonts, for instance, I don't think it's unreasonable to build your site in a way that lets the user override the font using their browser's settings. Or for people with limited motor control, placing frequently used together controls nearer to each other can improve both your UX and your accessibility for people with motor impairments. I realize this isn't the easy, straightforward answer you wanted, but this is the reality of the situation.
- chris37879 5y agoJust realized I should have edited that first sentence to say "No _private_ website or app"
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kevingadd 5y agoPeople have had serious complaints about the accessibility of Discord's UI for ages, disheartening to find out that they've made it worse as part of another redesign. I wish there was more of an incentive for companies to take this seriously. Hard to forget the bit where they removed Light Mode as a "joke". Very funny until you remember that many people can't easily use Discord in Dark Mode (in part because of how poorly Dark Mode is designed for accessibility) so you're sabotaging their experience as a gag.
- chris37879 5y agoYup, their contrast on a lot of elements is already way too low and this isn't helping. And light mode is honestly worse for accessibility on Discord because the vast majority of their base use dark mode and make choices for things that only work in dark mode. Like having a bright yellow for your username, it looks great against the dark grey background of dark mode, but is completely unreadable on the white background of light mode.
- gt565k 5y agoThe color palette on their UX was terrible to begin with, new design or not. Everyone's riding this dark mode train but it literally makes things worse sometimes when the colors don't contrast well.
- DiggyJohnson 5y agoIs "harmful" the best word here? I feel like inaccessible much better describes the issue at hand.
- cyril_st_john 5y agoInteresting concern for HN commenters to have given the number of "X Considered Harmful" articles that make it to the front page here.
- kevingadd 5y agoI think in this case the changes are making an existing situation worse, so by changing it Discord's design team is inflicting harm. The product itself is not harmful, just inaccessible, but describing the changes as harmful seems right. I have to use Discord every day for work, so if this redesign was interfering with that I'd be pissed. (I pay for a third-party Discord client for this and other reasons)
- dahfizz 5y agoharm /härm/ noun : physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted. Nobody is inflicting any harm by choosing a bad color palette.
- kevingadd 5y agoThe word "harm" means many things. Just google "consumer harm", for example, and the top result is a government agency using the word harm to describe non-physical injury: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/supervision-and-examinations/consumer-compliance-examination-manual/documents/2/ii-2-1.pdf https://www.fdic.gov/resources/supervision-and-examinations/...
- tobr 5y agoYou’re conveniently skipping over the secondary definitions, which includes “actual or potential ill effect or danger”.
- 5y ago
- eloeffler 5y agoI miss the times™ where theming was a thing in my favorite programs and environments. WinAmp, MySpace, even my Nokia 6300 had themes. I never understood why this trend didn't stay and become more popular.
- tobr 5y agoTheming makes it really hard to update the software in any substantial way. Even the slightest change to the design could end up breaking themes, or being drawn as white text on white background, etc. I think it’s natural that it was more common when auto-updating software wasn’t the norm.
- eloeffler 5y agoHm that's a good point. Some access to the theming would be nice though. Old themes were heavily based on tailored graphics that can really not be adapted easily. But the problem at hand (UI that's hard to read for the visually impaired) could be addressed with at least some access to the theming. That's something many programs still offer though.
- tobr 5y ago“Theming” for accessibility reasons is something I believe most systems support. Things like larger text size, high-contrast mode, etc.
- simmerup 5y agoI imagine it's because it makes the app look amateurish.
- cblconfederate 5y agowhy does a discord full of 15 year olds need to look professional?
- simmerup 5y ago
- jycr753 5y agoSo? I am color blind and could care less
- dahfizz 5y agoThe language here rubs me the wrong way. Everything is stated as being "incredibly harmful" with no explanation beyond > ...directly harms visually impaired individuals due to lack of visual clarity. I am also not sure how "Elements lack unity" is related to the UI causing harm. I don't use discord, so I have no idea how good the UI is. If the UI is bad and hard for the visually impaired to use, there is definitely a better way to communicate that. This is how they end their post: > This is not good UX design. It is the opposite. It harms end-users. Revert the changes. The whole thing reads like a bad tumblr post.
- silicon2401 5y ago> The whole thing reads like a bad tumblr post. It's exactly the kind of demonizing language that has unfortunately become common in recent years. By using dishonest wording to make your target look like an inhuman villain, it's easier to make the readers accept whatever the writer says. The writer then tries to sneakily shirk the responsibility to justify their claims. Just like at your quote: > This is not good UX design. It is the opposite. It harms end-users. Revert the changes. This wouldn't have passed my high school writing class. It's 3 arguments, 1 conclusion, and 0 evidence to support the conclusion. Instead of justifying their claims, people nowadays like to just throw out extreme words like "harm" and make it sound like Discord is installing keyloggers or something
- BitwiseFool 5y agoFor people like you and I, this is bad rhetoric - not well written or argued. But I feel like this is how the younger generations communicate and persuade with online messages. Be short, make bold claims, and make a call to action based on a sense of justice.
- tobr 5y agoSpeaking of 0 evidence, I’d like to stick a [citation needed] on this: > It's exactly the kind of demonizing language that has unfortunately become common in recent years. It reads like a thinly veiled “kids these days”.
- toopok4k3 5y agoWhat? They made the already bad UI worse? I complained about the total lack of contrast years ago. Who is the designer there? Shame on them.
- coolreader18 5y agoI guess I could've just opened discord, but I went looking for an example of what had changed: https://i.redd.it/l6sluq2o8hy61.png https://i.redd.it/l6sluq2o8hy61.png
- cblconfederate 5y agoTBF their previous design isnt the pinnacle of readability either, it's basically 50 shades of grey (I use the web version only and haven't seen the new one yet). The audible beep seems to be always random. In general I think these chat interfaces are the worst kind of discussion boards we can have, but discord is free and still allows adult content so i guess its a compromise.
- dancemethis 5y agoWell, being a proprietary data hoarder, Discord itself is already harmful to all users - so at least they're consistent.
- shadowofneptune 5y agoI understand the concerns here, but why is the goal to revert the changes? Discord's UI has relied on low contrast colors for a long time, especially for reacts and the code blocks. It feels like Discord was trying to improve accessibility not hurt it, and made poorly informed choices. Another tweak to the UI with these concerns in mind could be useful even for those without disabilities.
- forgotpwd16 5y agoSo, how it differs from current design?
- nix23 5y agoChinese language harms me too, i just cant understand it!!