3 ms·

> What I would like to see is something where all browser events are piped to our server and we send basic WebGL draw commands back to the client. Do you have

> What I would like to see is something where all browser events are piped to our server and we send basic WebGL draw commands back to the client. Do you have a plan for also handling accessibility if you go in this direction?

bob1029 5y ago
> Do you have a plan for also handling accessibility if you go in this direction? It is something I would certainly consider after meeting the most urgent objectives. There is no reason I couldn't consider offering alternative views for certain users which contain things like high-contrast or screen-reader enhancements. The initial scope of this work would be for a privately-used B2B application. Accessibility in this context would be driven by our business customers' specific requirements. That said, providing accessibility is more of a business/application problem than a UI framework problem in my opinion.
- eropple 5y ago
  So from where I sit, and mind you I'm not claiming to be perfect about accessibility but I spend a good bit of time thinking about it, this answer gives me shivers. 'Cause like: > It is something I would certainly consider after meeting the most urgent objectives. In practice, this is pronounced "no." > That said, providing accessibility is more of a business/application problem than a UI framework problem in my opinion. In practice, this is pronounced "I don't care". An application cannot describe "a button with the caption of 'OK'" without a UI framework that can and does tell it that there is a button, that it has a caption, and what that caption is. To be honest, accessibility is a team effort from everyone and things are already bad enough without actively making them worse.
  - mwcampbell 5y ago
    > In practice, this is pronounced "I don't care". I appreciate that you're taking a stand for accessibility, but IMO, that kind of statement just adds to the shrillness of so much of our online discourse. We can discuss the pros and cons of various approaches to UI, and what it takes to make accessibility practical, without venturing into the topic of whether a developer cares about accessibility, which is likely to just make them defensive.
    - eropple 5y ago
      Ooh. Shrill. I'm pretty okay with this as a stance, to be honest, because folks have been asking those of us who are fully abled, very nicely for a very long time, to stop making things harder for them. Blithe dismissal deserves to be received a certain way.
      - mwcampbell 5y ago
        > folks have been asking those of us who are fully abled, very nicely for a very long time, to stop making things harder for them. Blithe dismissal deserves to be received a certain way. I'm one of those folks (see my profile). I still ask nicely, and try to be nice even when responding to what seems to be a blithe dismissal, because I want to focus on solving the problem, without making developers feel unnecessarily uncomfortable about honestly discussing a sensitive topic. I still struggle with this, and might not have gotten it right in my own response to bob1029 yesterday, since that response got downvoted. Also I'm not sure bob1029's original response is a blithe dismissal; he may just be honestly stating the decision-making process that makes sense in a business world where disabled people are a tiny minority. That sucks for us, but maybe I just have to have the serenity to accept what we can't change, and focus on what is feasible, such as reconstructing UI content and semantics using OCR and other machine learning techniques (like Apple is doing as an option on iOS), rather than trying to convince every UI framework and application developer to put extra work into accessibility. I've been resisting that conclusion, but I'm getting closer to accepting it.
        eropple 5y ago
        I know you are, and I follow your stuff. :) My post was off-the-cuff a little sharper (to you, not to him) than I wanted it, because "shrill" is coded usually on this forum in a way you didn't mean it. Sorry for that. I respect where you're coming from, and at the same time I don't think pointing out that putting something as the fourth-most-important priority means it will stay the fourth-most-important priority forever is "shrill". Because if you shove something baseline like a11y down the ladder like that, it's never coming up, and if characterizing that as "I don't care" makes somebody upset then it's probably a "look inward" moment, yeah? I think it's reasonable to demand that we as a profession not act to be noninclusive by default. Not, at this point, ask. Demand is OK. I think more must be expected of us as people, not just as technologists. The business world might indeed say "oh, small minority, screw them"--we must be ethically loaded as humane craftspeople to fight back against that. It's kind of a money-where-my-mouth-is thing for me, and I'm very happy that my employer cares a lot about this. It's a video company, so there definitely are limits to what we are able to do for folks with sight impairment, but right now we're in the middle of an initiative for the conference we run to better enable hearing-impaired folks to enjoy and participate. It's not why I came to work here, but I'm glad we're doing it.
  - bob1029 5y ago
    > things are already bad enough without actively making them worse. So should I stop trying to improve things if I cant perfectly satisfy all potential stakeholders on day 1? Is incremental progress not good enough?
    - eropple 5y ago
      "Just add accessibility later" is the UI world's equivalent of "just add multiplayer later." Design for it, or it'll never get done and what does get done will be done poorly. So my bet's on never satisfying them at all.
- mwcampbell 5y ago
  > It is something I would certainly consider after meeting the most urgent objectives. What urgent objectives are met by replacing HTML with a server-side UI implemented on top of WebGL? > The initial scope of this work would be for a privately-used B2B application. That doesn't make accessibility any less important. Consider: if one of your business customers is trying to fill a position that involves using your application, and one of the candidates is blind (or otherwise disabled), a reactive approach to accessibility means that they would likely have to pass over that candidate, even if that candidate is otherwise well qualified for the job. Or an existing employee may have an accident or illness that makes them disabled. So I don't think it's a good idea to ignore accessibility, let alone do something that is sure to make it much worse, until a customer reactively asks you to pay attention to it. That said, providing accessibility is more of a business/application problem than a UI framework problem in my opinion. I entirely agree with eropple's response to that. Also, our best hope of applications being more or less accessible is for the UI frameworks to automatically implement accessibility as much as they can.

bob1029 5y ago

> Do you have a plan for also handling accessibility if you go in this direction? It is something I would certainly consider after meeting the most urgent objectives. There is no reason I couldn't consider offering alternative views for certain users which contain things like high-contrast or screen-reader enhancements. The initial scope of this work would be for a privately-used B2B application. Accessibility in this context would be driven by our business customers' specific requirements. That said, providing accessibility is more of a business/application problem than a UI framework problem in my opinion.

eropple 5y ago
So from where I sit, and mind you I'm not claiming to be perfect about accessibility but I spend a good bit of time thinking about it, this answer gives me shivers. 'Cause like: > It is something I would certainly consider after meeting the most urgent objectives. In practice, this is pronounced "no." > That said, providing accessibility is more of a business/application problem than a UI framework problem in my opinion. In practice, this is pronounced "I don't care". An application cannot describe "a button with the caption of 'OK'" without a UI framework that can and does tell it that there is a button, that it has a caption, and what that caption is. To be honest, accessibility is a team effort from everyone and things are already bad enough without actively making them worse.
- mwcampbell 5y ago
  > In practice, this is pronounced "I don't care". I appreciate that you're taking a stand for accessibility, but IMO, that kind of statement just adds to the shrillness of so much of our online discourse. We can discuss the pros and cons of various approaches to UI, and what it takes to make accessibility practical, without venturing into the topic of whether a developer cares about accessibility, which is likely to just make them defensive.
  - eropple 5y ago
    Ooh. Shrill. I'm pretty okay with this as a stance, to be honest, because folks have been asking those of us who are fully abled, very nicely for a very long time, to stop making things harder for them. Blithe dismissal deserves to be received a certain way.
    - mwcampbell 5y ago
      > folks have been asking those of us who are fully abled, very nicely for a very long time, to stop making things harder for them. Blithe dismissal deserves to be received a certain way. I'm one of those folks (see my profile). I still ask nicely, and try to be nice even when responding to what seems to be a blithe dismissal, because I want to focus on solving the problem, without making developers feel unnecessarily uncomfortable about honestly discussing a sensitive topic. I still struggle with this, and might not have gotten it right in my own response to bob1029 yesterday, since that response got downvoted. Also I'm not sure bob1029's original response is a blithe dismissal; he may just be honestly stating the decision-making process that makes sense in a business world where disabled people are a tiny minority. That sucks for us, but maybe I just have to have the serenity to accept what we can't change, and focus on what is feasible, such as reconstructing UI content and semantics using OCR and other machine learning techniques (like Apple is doing as an option on iOS), rather than trying to convince every UI framework and application developer to put extra work into accessibility. I've been resisting that conclusion, but I'm getting closer to accepting it.
      - eropple 5y ago
        I know you are, and I follow your stuff. :) My post was off-the-cuff a little sharper (to you, not to him) than I wanted it, because "shrill" is coded usually on this forum in a way you didn't mean it. Sorry for that. I respect where you're coming from, and at the same time I don't think pointing out that putting something as the fourth-most-important priority means it will stay the fourth-most-important priority forever is "shrill". Because if you shove something baseline like a11y down the ladder like that, it's never coming up, and if characterizing that as "I don't care" makes somebody upset then it's probably a "look inward" moment, yeah? I think it's reasonable to demand that we as a profession not act to be noninclusive by default. Not, at this point, ask. Demand is OK. I think more must be expected of us as people, not just as technologists. The business world might indeed say "oh, small minority, screw them"--we must be ethically loaded as humane craftspeople to fight back against that. It's kind of a money-where-my-mouth-is thing for me, and I'm very happy that my employer cares a lot about this. It's a video company, so there definitely are limits to what we are able to do for folks with sight impairment, but right now we're in the middle of an initiative for the conference we run to better enable hearing-impaired folks to enjoy and participate. It's not why I came to work here, but I'm glad we're doing it.
- bob1029 5y ago
  > things are already bad enough without actively making them worse. So should I stop trying to improve things if I cant perfectly satisfy all potential stakeholders on day 1? Is incremental progress not good enough?
  - eropple 5y ago
    "Just add accessibility later" is the UI world's equivalent of "just add multiplayer later." Design for it, or it'll never get done and what does get done will be done poorly. So my bet's on never satisfying them at all.
mwcampbell 5y ago
> It is something I would certainly consider after meeting the most urgent objectives. What urgent objectives are met by replacing HTML with a server-side UI implemented on top of WebGL? > The initial scope of this work would be for a privately-used B2B application. That doesn't make accessibility any less important. Consider: if one of your business customers is trying to fill a position that involves using your application, and one of the candidates is blind (or otherwise disabled), a reactive approach to accessibility means that they would likely have to pass over that candidate, even if that candidate is otherwise well qualified for the job. Or an existing employee may have an accident or illness that makes them disabled. So I don't think it's a good idea to ignore accessibility, let alone do something that is sure to make it much worse, until a customer reactively asks you to pay attention to it. That said, providing accessibility is more of a business/application problem than a UI framework problem in my opinion. I entirely agree with eropple's response to that. Also, our best hope of applications being more or less accessible is for the UI frameworks to automatically implement accessibility as much as they can.