4 ms·

I would like to see more support in UI/UX for people who are not neurotypical. Or, customizable interfaces to support people with disabilities. When you build f

I would like to see more support in UI/UX for people who are not neurotypical. Or, customizable interfaces to support people with disabilities. When you build for the common denominator, these people get left out.

JohnFen 3y ago
When you build for the common denominator, a huge number of people are left out, including those with disabilities. > customizable interfaces to support people with disabilities. Customizable interfaces are the only real solution -- not just for people with disabilities, but for everybody. There are a number of websites and applications that I stopped using because of UX choices I am allergic to. If they were configurable, it might have been possible for me to mitigate the worst parts. Further, UX/UI decisions have been getting worse over time, making configurability even more important as time goes on.
- uxcolumbo 3y ago
  Exactly. It's unfortunate that accessibility is usually treated as an add-on in a lot of 'UX' project. Focus is heavily on visual design. Accessibility needs to be considered from the start when designing new apps. Making things accessible means making it easier for all users. Which apps / sites have you stopped using because of poor UX choices. And what are those things that made you stop using those sites?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Which apps have you stopped using because the UX choices. The biggest example for me is Firefox. FF's UX has always been horrible, but until the revamp, it was always possible to configure it to be OK without a great deal of effort. After the revamp, the UX is still horrible (although in different ways), but the ability to configure the bad parts away has been seriously reduced. > And what are those things that made you stop using those sites? Overreliance on Javascript, hidden functionality, and (related) the lack of discoverability top my list of peeves. Also, with websites, being too aggressive with enforcing a particular layout, color scheme, fonts, etc.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      > After the revamp, the UX is still horrible (although in different ways), but the ability to configure the bad parts away has been seriously reduced. It has become HTML-rendered, if anything, shouldn’t it be more configurable?
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        It depends on how you mean. If you're a web dev, and/or willing to mess with CSS, then perhaps it's more configurable? But there is significant friction in doing so, even if you do know how to work at that level. In terms of what normal users can realistically do, the browser is much less configurable. Also, that pretty much only affects the look, it doesn't affect how the browser behaves.
    - ris58h 3y ago
      > FF's UX has always been horrible I've used it for years. It can browse sites, manage tabs and so on. Even synchronization between devices works fine. There are some issues but I wouldn't call it horrible. Could you elaborate more?
- graypegg 3y ago
  One little thing I think makes a huge difference is just using the user agent a bit more. You can write styles at only apply in high-contrast or reduced-motion mode. Use relative text sizes so you the user agent can use a value for the root font size that isn’t 16px. Use buttons for buttons, links for links, and <dialog> for dialogs etc. I’ve thought about just making more web apps that have nearly no styling, maybe just some layout, but otherwise relying on the user agent styles. That’s a ton of user customizability for FREE! And honestly, it usually doesn’t look that bad.
  - phatskat 3y ago
    One I really appreciate is having sane tab indexes and the ability to trigger things like buttons and drop-downs using the keyboard. A slick select box loses a lot of points for me if I can’t navigate and use it with just my keyboard.
- kazinator 3y ago
  When you build for the common denominator, people with brains often get left out.
crickey 3y ago
Agreed us vim users are serverly undercatered to.
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  got a solid laugh. thank you
- phatskat 3y ago
  Sites with surprise hjkl always make me smile
timetraveller26 3y ago
We have made Dark mode an expected feature on UI's, hopefully with time we will get an Expert mode that allows customizable interfaces (anyone remember Foobar2000 or GMusicBrowser?). Home Assistant is a good example of such UI.
- hooverd 3y ago
  You used to be able to bring your own themes. Now if you're lucky, you might get dark mode, as a treat.
- ris58h 3y ago
  > hopefully with time we will get an Expert mode that allows customizable interfaces I hope we won't. Why do you need this? What issue will you solve with it?
  - phatskat 3y ago
    There’s plenty of UIs that I would like to be able to either reorganize or remove parts of. Arc Browser has Boosts which do allow for a decent amount of customization which is much appreciated.

JohnFen 3y ago

When you build for the common denominator, a huge number of people are left out, including those with disabilities. > customizable interfaces to support people with disabilities. Customizable interfaces are the only real solution -- not just for people with disabilities, but for everybody. There are a number of websites and applications that I stopped using because of UX choices I am allergic to. If they were configurable, it might have been possible for me to mitigate the worst parts. Further, UX/UI decisions have been getting worse over time, making configurability even more important as time goes on.

uxcolumbo 3y ago
Exactly. It's unfortunate that accessibility is usually treated as an add-on in a lot of 'UX' project. Focus is heavily on visual design. Accessibility needs to be considered from the start when designing new apps. Making things accessible means making it easier for all users. Which apps / sites have you stopped using because of poor UX choices. And what are those things that made you stop using those sites?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Which apps have you stopped using because the UX choices. The biggest example for me is Firefox. FF's UX has always been horrible, but until the revamp, it was always possible to configure it to be OK without a great deal of effort. After the revamp, the UX is still horrible (although in different ways), but the ability to configure the bad parts away has been seriously reduced. > And what are those things that made you stop using those sites? Overreliance on Javascript, hidden functionality, and (related) the lack of discoverability top my list of peeves. Also, with websites, being too aggressive with enforcing a particular layout, color scheme, fonts, etc.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    > After the revamp, the UX is still horrible (although in different ways), but the ability to configure the bad parts away has been seriously reduced. It has become HTML-rendered, if anything, shouldn’t it be more configurable?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      It depends on how you mean. If you're a web dev, and/or willing to mess with CSS, then perhaps it's more configurable? But there is significant friction in doing so, even if you do know how to work at that level. In terms of what normal users can realistically do, the browser is much less configurable. Also, that pretty much only affects the look, it doesn't affect how the browser behaves.
  - ris58h 3y ago
    > FF's UX has always been horrible I've used it for years. It can browse sites, manage tabs and so on. Even synchronization between devices works fine. There are some issues but I wouldn't call it horrible. Could you elaborate more?
graypegg 3y ago
One little thing I think makes a huge difference is just using the user agent a bit more. You can write styles at only apply in high-contrast or reduced-motion mode. Use relative text sizes so you the user agent can use a value for the root font size that isn’t 16px. Use buttons for buttons, links for links, and <dialog> for dialogs etc. I’ve thought about just making more web apps that have nearly no styling, maybe just some layout, but otherwise relying on the user agent styles. That’s a ton of user customizability for FREE! And honestly, it usually doesn’t look that bad.
- phatskat 3y ago
  One I really appreciate is having sane tab indexes and the ability to trigger things like buttons and drop-downs using the keyboard. A slick select box loses a lot of points for me if I can’t navigate and use it with just my keyboard.
kazinator 3y ago
When you build for the common denominator, people with brains often get left out.

crickey 3y ago

Agreed us vim users are serverly undercatered to.

JohnMakin 3y ago
got a solid laugh. thank you
phatskat 3y ago
Sites with surprise hjkl always make me smile

timetraveller26 3y ago

We have made Dark mode an expected feature on UI's, hopefully with time we will get an Expert mode that allows customizable interfaces (anyone remember Foobar2000 or GMusicBrowser?). Home Assistant is a good example of such UI.

hooverd 3y ago
You used to be able to bring your own themes. Now if you're lucky, you might get dark mode, as a treat.
ris58h 3y ago
> hopefully with time we will get an Expert mode that allows customizable interfaces I hope we won't. Why do you need this? What issue will you solve with it?
- phatskat 3y ago
  There’s plenty of UIs that I would like to be able to either reorganize or remove parts of. Arc Browser has Boosts which do allow for a decent amount of customization which is much appreciated.