3 ms·

I too am incredibly salty from my past accessibility work. Knowing the HTML attributes is one thing, but applying them to your product in a predictable way is

I too am incredibly salty from my past accessibility work. Knowing the HTML attributes is one thing, but applying them to your product in a predictable way is another. Folks talk about the importance of cross-browser testing, but willfully neglect cross-screenreader testing. The incentive for industry to meet the needs of these users just isn't where it should be. Too many stakeholders agree that meeting the needs of able users is good enough. Accessibility is just a checkbox for most organizations. A token gesture that "we care" when really it just means "we care enough until we are forced to care more".

halfblindsalt 3y ago
The issue is that 1-2% of users of a random service might use screen readers. As an industry we’ve agreed that it often makes sense to drop support for browsers with more market share. Every screen reader is going to have an order of magnitude smaller user base than the browsers we’ve decided to stop supporting. “No one” is going to do meaningful cross-reader testing. The only reason “anyone” does any accessibility work at all is the law (and thank god for it).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
graypegg 3y ago
YES. I wrote something [0] that combined a whole bunch of annoyances I’ve had at past jobs. Web developers tend to use a private definition of the word “accessible” that’s so hyper technical in specification that any conversation about the actual experience of using assistive technology ends with the something like “why are you using VoiceOver?”. It’s not about the resulting interface, but the specific and lintable stats. [0] https://graypegg.com/2023/11/25/the-private-definition-of-accessible.html https://graypegg.com/2023/11/25/the-private-definition-of-ac...