3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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."

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."