3 ms·

This really sounds like you should have several layouts available.

oh_sigh 5y ago
Right, that is what I've always wondered - why do we try to shoehorn what usually amounts to accessibility for low visibility users into the visual format of a webpage? Wouldn't it be easier and better to offer a completely different, tailored experience for low-vis users? Even just an alternate layout that makes it more likely for screen readers to work naturally. e.g. www.cnn.com vs lite.cnn.com
- kalensh 5y ago
  Because very few companies will maintain that alternate site to ensure it provides the same functionality and content. And accessibility is more than just screen reader compatibility.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    Isn't that the state we're already in? Very few sites actually test for accessibility before pushing production changes. It is already a second class citizen.
- ILMostro7 5y ago
  Reminds me of pre-smartphone mobile web.
- SilasX 5y ago
  Except, that’s exactly how html originally started: “oh it’s a nice, machine-readable way of structuring a document, where users can plug in their preferred reader and use it however they like!” lite.cnn.com just starts that process all over again: “Lifehack: you can access websites by lite.<domain> and you’ll get a less hostile experience because it’s intended to be accessible.” “Lifehack: Use the extension LiteBrowse, which automatically goes to the light version of a site and then prettifies it for you.” ‘Oh my! Our analytics say most users are going to the light version! Let’s spice that up and do a UX revamp on it, help improve engagement and get ad clicks.’ ‘Oh, wow, someone make a framework to churn out these really profession lite versions of a page, and wow, they’re so eye-popping and let you incorporate JavaScript…’ Earlier thread on this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20224961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20224961
  - oceanghost 5y ago
    Except your point ignores the reality of the situation. Whatever HTML was intended to be-- it isn't now.
    - SilasX 5y ago
      And whatever lite.domain is intended to be, it won’t be after a few years if you don’t make the change in practices that led to html’s fate.
  - ximm 5y ago
    > The principles of universality of access irrespective of hardware or software platform, network infrastructure, language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental impairment are core values in Web design Tim Berners-Lee https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html (1998)

Right, that is what I've always wondered - why do we try to shoehorn what usually amounts to accessibility for low visibility users into the visual format of a webpage? Wouldn't it be easier and better to offer a completely different, tailored experience for low-vis users? Even just an alternate layout that makes it more likely for screen readers to work naturally. e.g. www.cnn.com vs lite.cnn.com

kalensh 5y ago
Because very few companies will maintain that alternate site to ensure it provides the same functionality and content. And accessibility is more than just screen reader compatibility.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Isn't that the state we're already in? Very few sites actually test for accessibility before pushing production changes. It is already a second class citizen.
ILMostro7 5y ago
Reminds me of pre-smartphone mobile web.
SilasX 5y ago
Except, that’s exactly how html originally started: “oh it’s a nice, machine-readable way of structuring a document, where users can plug in their preferred reader and use it however they like!” lite.cnn.com just starts that process all over again: “Lifehack: you can access websites by lite.<domain> and you’ll get a less hostile experience because it’s intended to be accessible.” “Lifehack: Use the extension LiteBrowse, which automatically goes to the light version of a site and then prettifies it for you.” ‘Oh my! Our analytics say most users are going to the light version! Let’s spice that up and do a UX revamp on it, help improve engagement and get ad clicks.’ ‘Oh, wow, someone make a framework to churn out these really profession lite versions of a page, and wow, they’re so eye-popping and let you incorporate JavaScript…’ Earlier thread on this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20224961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20224961
- oceanghost 5y ago
  Except your point ignores the reality of the situation. Whatever HTML was intended to be-- it isn't now.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    And whatever lite.domain is intended to be, it won’t be after a few years if you don’t make the change in practices that led to html’s fate.
- ximm 5y ago
  > The principles of universality of access irrespective of hardware or software platform, network infrastructure, language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental impairment are core values in Web design Tim Berners-Lee https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html (1998)