5 ms·

I'm sorry, this is a very bad take and analogy. A run inherently excludes people who cannot run. But a website need not inherently exclude the blind; websites

I'm sorry, this is a very bad take and analogy. A run inherently excludes people who cannot run. But a website need not inherently exclude the blind; websites are accessible to the vision impaired by default and it takes extra work to render them inaccessible. We can and should do better.

Manuel_D 5y ago
> websites are accessible to the vision impaired by default and it takes extra work to render them inaccessible Is this really the case? If I build a website that entirely consists of a WebGL canvas, E.G. for a 3d graphics demo, I doubt screen readers would be able to make sense of it. But I didn't necessarily do any extra work to impair this usage, it was just a byproduct of the tools I used.
- cj 5y ago
  > for a 3d graphics demo Presumably if you’re using WebGL for 3D graphics, it’s for something visual that can’t be seen by the blind, in which case you could have an alternative (or quite literally an “alt” tag) text version accompanying it. I know you picked that example arbitrarily. But the GP’s point about “extra work to render them inaccessible” is, by and large, true. HTML by default is accessible.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    "HTML, by default, is accessible" is at best a massive oversimplification. Arranging react elements in a certain way can break them. If you're writing out <div>s and tables like it's 1999 then sure, I'll take your word that this usually works with screen readers. But it's not 1999 anymore. It's a non-trivial task to make a modern website accessible to screen readers. My past workplaces had dedicated accessibility teams ensuring that the site and mobile apps were usable with a screen reader. The point is that "websites are accessible to the vision impaired by default and it takes extra work to render them inaccessible" drastically trivializes the work it takes to make a moderately complex web accessible. And it falsely accuses those who don't have the resources to do this of deliberately making the site inaccessible.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- slipframe 5y ago
  > If I build a website that entirely consists of a WebGL canvas, E.G. for a 3d graphics demo If all you're trying to do is make a website that lets people schedule appointments, then all of that shit is ludicrous "extra work."
schoen 5y ago
Other people in this thread (and in our world) have taken a different interpretation, arguing that people should be forbidden from making new public services, including online publishing, that don't work for users with some disability. (For example, someone else in this thread said that web sites need to be annotated with accessibility information in order to facilitate interoperability with assistive software. In that account, that is extra work that someone might otherwise not do, rather than just refraining from breaking something.) The popularity of versions this position suggests to me that there is a need for analogies and arguments that defend the idea that you should, in fact, be able to do stuff that some people will benefit from/be able to participate in and others can't/won't.
- Retric 5y ago
  People seem to be confused here. What’s required is accommodation not equivalency. The important bit is things like color blindness can often but not always be accommodated. Government websites need to accommodate the blind where possible, but that doesn’t prevent them from making a video game which they are unable to play. Similarly, companies can discriminate if someone is unable to preform core job functions after reasonable accommodation. Aka, no blind school bus drivers. It’s because Covid information is just text and basic forms that they have the obligation. The requirements for 508 compliance are really quite basic, where projects trip up is treating it as some sort of tacked on requirement rather than basic functionality. Spending months on style choices etc then trying to tack on compliance when it’s “done.”

Manuel_D 5y ago

> websites are accessible to the vision impaired by default and it takes extra work to render them inaccessible Is this really the case? If I build a website that entirely consists of a WebGL canvas, E.G. for a 3d graphics demo, I doubt screen readers would be able to make sense of it. But I didn't necessarily do any extra work to impair this usage, it was just a byproduct of the tools I used.

cj 5y ago
> for a 3d graphics demo Presumably if you’re using WebGL for 3D graphics, it’s for something visual that can’t be seen by the blind, in which case you could have an alternative (or quite literally an “alt” tag) text version accompanying it. I know you picked that example arbitrarily. But the GP’s point about “extra work to render them inaccessible” is, by and large, true. HTML by default is accessible.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  "HTML, by default, is accessible" is at best a massive oversimplification. Arranging react elements in a certain way can break them. If you're writing out <div>s and tables like it's 1999 then sure, I'll take your word that this usually works with screen readers. But it's not 1999 anymore. It's a non-trivial task to make a modern website accessible to screen readers. My past workplaces had dedicated accessibility teams ensuring that the site and mobile apps were usable with a screen reader. The point is that "websites are accessible to the vision impaired by default and it takes extra work to render them inaccessible" drastically trivializes the work it takes to make a moderately complex web accessible. And it falsely accuses those who don't have the resources to do this of deliberately making the site inaccessible.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
slipframe 5y ago
> If I build a website that entirely consists of a WebGL canvas, E.G. for a 3d graphics demo If all you're trying to do is make a website that lets people schedule appointments, then all of that shit is ludicrous "extra work."

schoen 5y ago

Other people in this thread (and in our world) have taken a different interpretation, arguing that people should be forbidden from making new public services, including online publishing, that don't work for users with some disability. (For example, someone else in this thread said that web sites need to be annotated with accessibility information in order to facilitate interoperability with assistive software. In that account, that is extra work that someone might otherwise not do, rather than just refraining from breaking something.) The popularity of versions this position suggests to me that there is a need for analogies and arguments that defend the idea that you should, in fact, be able to do stuff that some people will benefit from/be able to participate in and others can't/won't.

Retric 5y ago
People seem to be confused here. What’s required is accommodation not equivalency. The important bit is things like color blindness can often but not always be accommodated. Government websites need to accommodate the blind where possible, but that doesn’t prevent them from making a video game which they are unable to play. Similarly, companies can discriminate if someone is unable to preform core job functions after reasonable accommodation. Aka, no blind school bus drivers. It’s because Covid information is just text and basic forms that they have the obligation. The requirements for 508 compliance are really quite basic, where projects trip up is treating it as some sort of tacked on requirement rather than basic functionality. Spending months on style choices etc then trying to tack on compliance when it’s “done.”