4 ms·

> Unfortunately people see accessibility as a burden that a small minority puts on the rest of us, but really it is something that benefits everyone Depends on

> Unfortunately people see accessibility as a burden that a small minority puts on the rest of us, but really it is something that benefits everyone Depends on the individual case — I’ve seen entire projects get scrapped because it wouldn’t be feasible to make an “accessible” version. Some things just aren’t work for everyone and that’s okay.

PaulHoule 4y ago
A flip side is that any bureaucratic mandate is a "free pass" to reject anything that's hard to find another justification for rejecting... In terms of institutional requirements it is a gift as much as a burden.
ryandrake 4y ago
Accessibility is like performance, and security, and portability: You don't create the product, and then "spoon a little security in" right before shipping. You build it from the start as secure, with security as a first-class goal, and gate features on whether or not they are secure. Same for accessibility. You don't try to take an existing inaccessible project and wave a magic accessibility wand around it late in the game. It should be a first class design principle. If you are hiring a UI designer or interaction designer, pay attention to how seriously they take accessibility in their designs. If they're good, their designs are accessible by default, because as a Cousin Comment said, accessibility is not just "usable by the disabled" it's "usable by everyone".
- warning26 4y ago
  I would argue that "usable by everyone" is an unreasonable goal which tends to result in catering to the lowest common denominator. For example, take buildings -- they typically have stairways, often as a fire escape route. However, stairways are not usable by everyone. Should we ensure that buildings have no stairways at all because there exist some people who can't use them? To apply this analogy to web accessibility, consider WCAG 2.5.5 Target Size -- in order to pass, click targets must be 44px by 44px. Seems reasonable right? Try designing a desktop spreadsheet program with 44x44 click targets. It's basically impossible to do in a way that doesn't severely impair the design for people who can click smaller targets.
  - account42 4y ago
    > I would argue that "usable by everyone" is an unreasonable goal which tends to result in catering to the lowest common denominator. Extremes are always unreasonable, the goal should be to support everyone that you reasonably can. Nobody is telling anyone to make their tools work for the blind deaf and mute quadruple amputee - but that does not mean that it should be acceptable to completely ignore the variations in capability of people wanting to use your product. > To apply this analogy to web accessibility, consider WCAG 2.5.5 Target Size -- in order to pass, click targets must be 44px by 44px. Seems reasonable right? Try designing a desktop spreadsheet program with 44x44 click targets. It's basically impossible to do in a way that doesn't severely impair the design for people who can click smaller targets. Blindly following guidelines leads to problems, yes. But you can achieve the goal of making the spreadsheed usable for someone who has trouble with small click targets: For a desktop program you should consider adding efficient and discoverable keyboard navigation so that noone needs to click anything. This will help power users as well as those with fine motion problems. In general, a program, unlike a physical staircase, is also something that can dynamically adapt to the needs of the user. For example you could make your spreadsheet zoomable. For a desktop program it could be OK to rely on third-party (or platform-provided) zoom utilities - just don't write your program in a way that makes those impossible to use. For buildings such dynamic adaption is not as feasible and so we make compromises that require some people to rely on others for help in incommon situations. But even there we should do what we resonably can - for in many parts of the world public buildings do have wheelchair-accessible entrances these days, even if the emergency exit is a stair.
briandear 4y ago
When building new commercial buildings (in the US,) accessibility is a non-negotiable requirement. And for good reason. If an accessible version wasn’t feasible in software, then it’s likely the project should have been scrapped just as a commercial building would never be built without accessibility as part of the core design. There shouldn’t be an “accessible version,” accessibility should be the default. Accessibility should be integral to everything built — especially software.
- lupire 4y ago
  But what counts as needing to be accessible? A staircase isn't accessible, but still allowed. The accessibility is in an alternate implementation provided for those who need it. A phone call is an accessible alternative to a website. US law says that the phone call must be offered at the same price as the website, for those who need it.
  - warning26 4y ago
    > A staircase isn't accessible, but still allowed. The accessibility is in an alternate implementation provided for those who need it. Exactly this -- some things just aren't going to be for everyone. If we truly wanted to make buildings "accessible", all stairways, and even printed signage would have to be banned, as there exists someone who cannot benefit from it.
    - account42 4y ago
      No, accessibility does not mean that everyone is knocked down to the same level. The staircase is not the feature, getting to different floors is - so it is acceptable to have a staircase for those that can and want to use it and an elevator for those that can't. Visual signage is acceptable as long as their a also navigation aids for the blind. And yes, whe do require these for many places.

PaulHoule 4y ago

A flip side is that any bureaucratic mandate is a "free pass" to reject anything that's hard to find another justification for rejecting... In terms of institutional requirements it is a gift as much as a burden.

ryandrake 4y ago

Accessibility is like performance, and security, and portability: You don't create the product, and then "spoon a little security in" right before shipping. You build it from the start as secure, with security as a first-class goal, and gate features on whether or not they are secure. Same for accessibility. You don't try to take an existing inaccessible project and wave a magic accessibility wand around it late in the game. It should be a first class design principle. If you are hiring a UI designer or interaction designer, pay attention to how seriously they take accessibility in their designs. If they're good, their designs are accessible by default, because as a Cousin Comment said, accessibility is not just "usable by the disabled" it's "usable by everyone".

warning26 4y ago
I would argue that "usable by everyone" is an unreasonable goal which tends to result in catering to the lowest common denominator. For example, take buildings -- they typically have stairways, often as a fire escape route. However, stairways are not usable by everyone. Should we ensure that buildings have no stairways at all because there exist some people who can't use them? To apply this analogy to web accessibility, consider WCAG 2.5.5 Target Size -- in order to pass, click targets must be 44px by 44px. Seems reasonable right? Try designing a desktop spreadsheet program with 44x44 click targets. It's basically impossible to do in a way that doesn't severely impair the design for people who can click smaller targets.
- account42 4y ago
  > I would argue that "usable by everyone" is an unreasonable goal which tends to result in catering to the lowest common denominator. Extremes are always unreasonable, the goal should be to support everyone that you reasonably can. Nobody is telling anyone to make their tools work for the blind deaf and mute quadruple amputee - but that does not mean that it should be acceptable to completely ignore the variations in capability of people wanting to use your product. > To apply this analogy to web accessibility, consider WCAG 2.5.5 Target Size -- in order to pass, click targets must be 44px by 44px. Seems reasonable right? Try designing a desktop spreadsheet program with 44x44 click targets. It's basically impossible to do in a way that doesn't severely impair the design for people who can click smaller targets. Blindly following guidelines leads to problems, yes. But you can achieve the goal of making the spreadsheed usable for someone who has trouble with small click targets: For a desktop program you should consider adding efficient and discoverable keyboard navigation so that noone needs to click anything. This will help power users as well as those with fine motion problems. In general, a program, unlike a physical staircase, is also something that can dynamically adapt to the needs of the user. For example you could make your spreadsheet zoomable. For a desktop program it could be OK to rely on third-party (or platform-provided) zoom utilities - just don't write your program in a way that makes those impossible to use. For buildings such dynamic adaption is not as feasible and so we make compromises that require some people to rely on others for help in incommon situations. But even there we should do what we resonably can - for in many parts of the world public buildings do have wheelchair-accessible entrances these days, even if the emergency exit is a stair.

briandear 4y ago

When building new commercial buildings (in the US,) accessibility is a non-negotiable requirement. And for good reason. If an accessible version wasn’t feasible in software, then it’s likely the project should have been scrapped just as a commercial building would never be built without accessibility as part of the core design. There shouldn’t be an “accessible version,” accessibility should be the default. Accessibility should be integral to everything built — especially software.

lupire 4y ago
But what counts as needing to be accessible? A staircase isn't accessible, but still allowed. The accessibility is in an alternate implementation provided for those who need it. A phone call is an accessible alternative to a website. US law says that the phone call must be offered at the same price as the website, for those who need it.
- warning26 4y ago
  > A staircase isn't accessible, but still allowed. The accessibility is in an alternate implementation provided for those who need it. Exactly this -- some things just aren't going to be for everyone. If we truly wanted to make buildings "accessible", all stairways, and even printed signage would have to be banned, as there exists someone who cannot benefit from it.
  - account42 4y ago
    No, accessibility does not mean that everyone is knocked down to the same level. The staircase is not the feature, getting to different floors is - so it is acceptable to have a staircase for those that can and want to use it and an elevator for those that can't. Visual signage is acceptable as long as their a also navigation aids for the blind. And yes, whe do require these for many places.