3 ms·
That's a lot of work for I don't know how much gain. And, more importantly, I have to agree with a number of posters here that page (and anything like it) is an
by devonnull 4y ago
That's a lot of work for I don't know how much gain. And, more importantly, I have to agree with a number of posters here that page (and anything like it) is an accessibility nightmare.
- iudqnolq 4y agoEdit: I've thought about this more and think this is wrong. There should be a non-handwritten transcript link at the top. Embarrassingly, I focused on thinking about screen readers rather than accessibility more broadly. --- (I've read a bunch about accessibility, but I'm no expert). I don't know, I actually think this blog is more accessible than most. You might have missed the transcript link at the bottom. The only changes I'd make is adding a summary alt to the image saying something like "The handwritten body of the blog post. A transcript is linked below". (Without any alt the page might be confusingly blank, but as many screen readers poorly support long alt text you don't want to copy the transcript in.)
- yreg 4y agoAdding a link to an accessible version to the very end, after the visitors who haven't left fought through the full inaccessible article isn't great… edit: Yes, it works okayish in screen readers. Accessibility is about far more than screen readers.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Handytinge 4y agoHaving support for those who use screen readers is a huge improvement ovet the majority of sites, surely? May I ask, what other accessibility conditions do you feel this site doesn't meet? Also - for a non corporate website - why should accessibility be a relevant factor? For a personal project, I don't see why anyone has to make it targeted for every case.