4 ms·

> Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a compute

> Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is, you may have an underlying health condition which has otherwise gone un-noticed. So they’re saying that they’re aware that their website is inaccessible to some people with certain health conditions, and they don’t intend to do anything about it. That’s like if a grocery store with a staircase at the front door put up a sign that says, “If you have trouble climbing these stairs, consult your doctor. No person with healthy legs should have trouble climbing these stairs. You may have a health condition.” I mean, thanks for the advice, but you’re still excluding people.

pmelendez 4y ago
The tone of the website has a very tongue-in-cheek tone to me. Taking it seriously is like doing journalism research using The Onion.
- zagrebian 4y ago
  How does a person who can’t read the text because of their health issues know that it’s tongue in cheek?
  - blowski 4y ago
    Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it? Should Picasso not have bothered painting since some people are blind? Should Tolstoy not have written War and Peace because some people do not have the reading level to cope with such a complex book? Should Maria Callas not have sung so beautifully because the deaf would never be able to hear her? If you are there for the content and not the design, then it works fine with a browser like Lynx. Thus all the content is entirely accessible.
    - zagrebian 4y ago
      A website can be designed so that it adapts to the user’s needs. For example, there exist CSS media features that allow websites to honor the user’s preferences for color scheme, reduced motion, and increased contrast, among others. https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/mediaqueries-5/#mf-user-preferences https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/mediaqueries-5/#mf-user-p... The website can both have a shrill design and be accessible at the same time.
      - blowski 4y ago
        Can you give me a concrete example of somebody who is unable to access the content, albeit using Lynx or with settings changes to Firefox?
        zagrebian 4y ago
        (Copy-pasted from other comment:) The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints.
        blowski 4y ago
        No. They are sarcastically saying that people making those complaints are doing so figuratively, not literally. Find one person who has genuinely suffered a surprise headache after looking at this site and you’ll have a stronger argument. Accessibility doesn’t mean everything should be available to everybody at all times. That would be universal direct accessibility, which is impossible. Those without the internet or computer access cannot use a grocery website, but the grocery store is still open, and thus the groceries are still indirectly accessible. Providing an elevator as well as stairs means the 2nd floor is universally accessible, even though some cannot use the stairs. Here, the content is provided by default with an unusual design. That design is part of their brand experience, which is why it has been posted. Some people cannot view through that experience, but they can still reasonably access the content using assistive technology. Thus the website is indirectly accessible. Remove the design and you make the experience inaccessible to me. These are trade offs, not absolutes.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Do you actually know someone who can't read the text, or are you concern trolling? Since you quoted and responded to it, it seems you are in agreement with the site authors. There are 10 themes. do all of them make any one person's eyes bleed?
    - zagrebian 4y ago
      > Do you actually know someone who can't read the text, or are you concern trolling? The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints. > There are 10 themes. do all of them make any one person's eyes bleed? The theme selector is at the bottom of the page. It’s unlikely that a person who gets a headache/eyestrain from the design will find it in time.
      - AlexandrB 4y ago
        So the answer is no, you don't know anyone who can't read the text. People post all kind of things online, especially hyperbole. As one of the other FAQ questions notes a lot of people also complain about their eyes bleeding, but this has never actually happened.
        zagrebian 4y ago
        When users complain about headaches and eyestrain, it’s probably better to take them seriously.
        seti0Cha 4y ago
        I once worked at a place where we shifted some content from a two column layout to three columns. We had users telling us it was literally giving them headaches and making them feel ill. This despite the fact that it now looked basically like the rest of our content. You absolutely cannot take all user complaints seriously.
        postalrat 4y ago
flappyeagle 4y ago
This is not a grocery store. It’s a niche enthusiast website. It’s supposed to be fun. Many fun things “exclude” people. Sports for instance. Music. Painting. There might be accessible versions. There are also inaccessible ones that trade off artistic expression over other factors. The internet is a big place. There’s room for all of it.
- zagrebian 4y ago
  I disagree. There’s no room for inaccessible websites. You don’t have to trade off anything. You can have both artistic expression and accessibility at the same time. For example, the website can make sure that it’s compatible with the browsers’ reader views. Then users can switch to reader view to read the text in simple black and white.
  - whostolemyhat 4y ago
    It is accessible - it matches standards and is available in text-only browsers.
    - zagrebian 4y ago
      I disagree. A website that induces eyestrain and headaches in some people is not fully accessible, unless the user has an easy way to switch to a simpler design. Browsers have reader modes, but the website in question is not compatible with them.
      - pjerem 4y ago
        As someone who suffers from strong eyestrain issues, I strongly disagree. There are an infinite number of possible disabilities. Most disabled people already have tools to accommodate. If you can't see little things, you can zoom. If you have issue with poor contrasts, you can configure your display and/or your browser and/or your OS. If you can't see anything, you can use screen readers. If you have issues with low contrasts, you configure your computer or your browser to override contrasts. Being "accessible" doesn't mean that your website have to think about every possible disability and that you have to provide a solution. It means that you use decent defaults styles but above all, it means that your website continues to function when it's degraded by the user agent. Someone with eyestrain issues will not hate you because you made a bad color choice for his disability. But he will probably hate you if him changing the colors or the zooming ratio renders your website unusable. edit : Also I have strong issues with contrasts due to amblyopia + astigmatism and this page was a pleasure to read. Black on light gray with slight font shadow is exactly what my eyes need.

pmelendez 4y ago

The tone of the website has a very tongue-in-cheek tone to me. Taking it seriously is like doing journalism research using The Onion.

zagrebian 4y ago
How does a person who can’t read the text because of their health issues know that it’s tongue in cheek?
- blowski 4y ago
  Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it? Should Picasso not have bothered painting since some people are blind? Should Tolstoy not have written War and Peace because some people do not have the reading level to cope with such a complex book? Should Maria Callas not have sung so beautifully because the deaf would never be able to hear her? If you are there for the content and not the design, then it works fine with a browser like Lynx. Thus all the content is entirely accessible.
  - zagrebian 4y ago
    A website can be designed so that it adapts to the user’s needs. For example, there exist CSS media features that allow websites to honor the user’s preferences for color scheme, reduced motion, and increased contrast, among others. https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/mediaqueries-5/#mf-user-preferences https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/mediaqueries-5/#mf-user-p... The website can both have a shrill design and be accessible at the same time.
    - blowski 4y ago
      Can you give me a concrete example of somebody who is unable to access the content, albeit using Lynx or with settings changes to Firefox?
      - zagrebian 4y ago
        (Copy-pasted from other comment:) The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints.
        blowski 4y ago
        No. They are sarcastically saying that people making those complaints are doing so figuratively, not literally. Find one person who has genuinely suffered a surprise headache after looking at this site and you’ll have a stronger argument. Accessibility doesn’t mean everything should be available to everybody at all times. That would be universal direct accessibility, which is impossible. Those without the internet or computer access cannot use a grocery website, but the grocery store is still open, and thus the groceries are still indirectly accessible. Providing an elevator as well as stairs means the 2nd floor is universally accessible, even though some cannot use the stairs. Here, the content is provided by default with an unusual design. That design is part of their brand experience, which is why it has been posted. Some people cannot view through that experience, but they can still reasonably access the content using assistive technology. Thus the website is indirectly accessible. Remove the design and you make the experience inaccessible to me. These are trade offs, not absolutes.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Do you actually know someone who can't read the text, or are you concern trolling? Since you quoted and responded to it, it seems you are in agreement with the site authors. There are 10 themes. do all of them make any one person's eyes bleed?
  - zagrebian 4y ago
    > Do you actually know someone who can't read the text, or are you concern trolling? The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints. > There are 10 themes. do all of them make any one person's eyes bleed? The theme selector is at the bottom of the page. It’s unlikely that a person who gets a headache/eyestrain from the design will find it in time.
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      So the answer is no, you don't know anyone who can't read the text. People post all kind of things online, especially hyperbole. As one of the other FAQ questions notes a lot of people also complain about their eyes bleeding, but this has never actually happened.
      - zagrebian 4y ago
        When users complain about headaches and eyestrain, it’s probably better to take them seriously.
        seti0Cha 4y ago
        I once worked at a place where we shifted some content from a two column layout to three columns. We had users telling us it was literally giving them headaches and making them feel ill. This despite the fact that it now looked basically like the rest of our content. You absolutely cannot take all user complaints seriously.
        postalrat 4y ago

flappyeagle 4y ago

This is not a grocery store. It’s a niche enthusiast website. It’s supposed to be fun. Many fun things “exclude” people. Sports for instance. Music. Painting. There might be accessible versions. There are also inaccessible ones that trade off artistic expression over other factors. The internet is a big place. There’s room for all of it.

zagrebian 4y ago
I disagree. There’s no room for inaccessible websites. You don’t have to trade off anything. You can have both artistic expression and accessibility at the same time. For example, the website can make sure that it’s compatible with the browsers’ reader views. Then users can switch to reader view to read the text in simple black and white.
- whostolemyhat 4y ago
  It is accessible - it matches standards and is available in text-only browsers.
  - zagrebian 4y ago
    I disagree. A website that induces eyestrain and headaches in some people is not fully accessible, unless the user has an easy way to switch to a simpler design. Browsers have reader modes, but the website in question is not compatible with them.
    - pjerem 4y ago
      As someone who suffers from strong eyestrain issues, I strongly disagree. There are an infinite number of possible disabilities. Most disabled people already have tools to accommodate. If you can't see little things, you can zoom. If you have issue with poor contrasts, you can configure your display and/or your browser and/or your OS. If you can't see anything, you can use screen readers. If you have issues with low contrasts, you configure your computer or your browser to override contrasts. Being "accessible" doesn't mean that your website have to think about every possible disability and that you have to provide a solution. It means that you use decent defaults styles but above all, it means that your website continues to function when it's degraded by the user agent. Someone with eyestrain issues will not hate you because you made a bad color choice for his disability. But he will probably hate you if him changing the colors or the zooming ratio renders your website unusable. edit : Also I have strong issues with contrasts due to amblyopia + astigmatism and this page was a pleasure to read. Black on light gray with slight font shadow is exactly what my eyes need.