6 ms·

Why have we settled upon annotating accessibility options onto a visual-first, generally high-precision/high-touch-density medium? Wouldn't it be better to just

Why have we settled upon annotating accessibility options onto a visual-first, generally high-precision/high-touch-density medium? Wouldn't it be better to just have a "low vision" version of the app, a "low touch accuracy" version of the app, etc? Then you could provide the accessibility-minded users with something customized to their needs, instead of trying to shoehorn accessibility onto a layout that might have no commonality between what "normal" users want and what accessibility-required users want.

threatofrain 3y ago
I think eventually we're heading to website as data with clients remixing the data in a way you don't expect; i.e., the final output will be a mishmash of sources.
- blowski 3y ago
  Sounds like "the semantic web", which has been a great idea just about to take for about 20 years now.
  - threatofrain 3y ago
    The problem is that the web isn't semantic enough; I mean, when considering the use case of reading documents, we don't even have a table of contents element.
    - blowski 3y ago
      The vast majority of web content is published on sites that want people to use the content in their extremely curated walled garden. Making it easy to mash up content and integrate it with other sites is the exact opposite of what's happening on Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, et al.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  The opposite of that actually. Nobody is going to bother with websites if it's just data that gets slurped up by AI and fed back to people, it's a lot of work for no payout. People who make websites are going to make them interactive multimedia experiences that pull you away from the chatbot to feel something. The New York Times the information dump has no future, the New York Times the interactive multimedia social game and event hub with emotionally stirring stories, pictures and video can survive.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    I can't speak to GP, but AI is exactly what I had in mind when I read their comment. With AI transforming website content, the sites themselves just become data sources. You could be right though, especially with more and more sites blocking robots. Legitimate companies might just have to shrug and say, "this site prohibits me from reading it. You'll have to go there instead) though that seems like a legal problem to me rather than a technical one.
    - CuriouslyC 3y ago
      Sites that try to use robots.txt to stay relevant are going to fail spectacularly. All their information is going to leak or be provided by other sources, and they're going to get forgotten. The only people who will be able to make a living selling data will be the ones who can produce data so unique that nobody else can claim to have created it, and for which training on it leaves an unmistakable signature that makes litigation easy.
- jmilloy 3y ago
  Why do you think that? Everything I see suggests the opposite.
ijwann 3y ago
Good luck getting your organization to support building two apps. And even if you succeed once, good luck getting your organization to ship features twice every single time they want to build something. What will end up happening is you have your normal app which isn't accessible, and a second app with a fraction of your features that is likely often broken because it's hard to prioritize.
- threatofrain 3y ago
  You have one backend and two frontends, one of which is simplified and all-about-the-data. I daresay there's the possibility that it's easier to create two websites than it is to make one website do two things.
  - extra88 3y ago
    You might have heard of this thing called "responsive web design," (RWD) it's pretty popular. RWD is all about it not being better to make two websites (in that case, "mobile" vs. "desktop") instead of one.
    - threatofrain 3y ago
      In some ways this is similar. With responsive design we're talking about orthogonal views in the sense that given enough effort, the mobile and desktop experiences can be completely different, but of course in practice we're going to reuse components to save time. So just like we have desktop and mobile views, I'm just proposing one more view where you also get to reuse some of your components, and where you get to pushback on stuff like animations, rich interactions, or novelties.
      - extra88 3y ago
        There are already ways to make all those things conditional without creating an entirely new view. Only occasionally does the "accessible way" need to be in addition to what was planned all along, such as up, down, left, right arrow buttons beside a draggable map, you don't need a whole separate map for that.
kolanos 3y ago
iOS and Android largely do this for you as long as you use the platform's accessibility features.
AlienRobot 3y ago
People said it would take twice as long to make two versions of the same frontend, so they spent a hundred times as long making crossplatform, responsive, accessible GUIs that often feel terrible to use no matter who the user is.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
toast0 3y ago
Separate but equal isn't equal, and in the US, the ADA requires reasonable accommodation. It's not reasonable to require a second, separate app to cater to people with low vision/low dexterity, and chances are it's not going to have equal functionality (how many separate apps have equal functionality). It's better to require platforms to make accommodation a core feature (which they have largely done!) and require developers to use the accommodations. The ADA has a private right of action which means that there's distributed effort to find out what's a reasonable accommodation and also to drag businesses into compliance. There's plusses and minuses with this approach, of course.
- acdha 3y ago
  > It's not reasonable to require a second, separate app to cater to people with low vision/low dexterity, and chances are it's not going to have equal functionality Your first half of that sentence is debatable in absolute terms but in practice almost always right due to the second half. It can be reasonable to have an alternative version of something — for example, an audio or braille version of a printed document, or a ramp alternative to stairs – but the really hard part is actually keeping them in parity. If something is seen as a compliance obligation, I’d be shocked if that actually happened versus resources being allocated mostly to the extent that they’re cheaper than legal fees.
PaulStatezny 3y ago
> Wouldn't it be better to just have a "low vision" version of the app, a "low touch accuracy" version of the app, etc? I find your comment interesting because it speaks to users who can see, just not well. When I think of web accessibility, I (mostly) think of users who are entirely blind. While it turns out: ~80% of screen reader users are blind. The other ~20% may be partially vision impaired, or sometimes not visually impaired at all (but use it due to things like dyslexia). [1] ~2.4% of Americans are visually impaired and use (or could benefit from) a screen reader. [2] A "low vision" / "low touch accuracy" version of an app would likely be serving less than 0.5% (20% of 2.4%, see above) of your userbase. (As opposed to simply supporting screen readers in the "regular" version of the app.) Doesn't seem like a priority to optimize for 0.5% of your userbase when you're just trying to vet an unproven idea. [1] https://www.tempertemper.net/blog/not-all-screen-reader-users-are-blind https://www.tempertemper.net/blog/not-all-screen-reader-user... [2] https://nfb.org/resources/blindness-statistics https://nfb.org/resources/blindness-statistics
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  I was just giving examples of different types of accessibility needs, it wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list. You can imagine "no vision" as a type of "low vision", where vision = 0.0 if you'd like
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Do you wear glasses? HoW many people do you know need corrective lenses?
  - pxc 3y ago
    'Low vision' covers a lot of the same ground as phrases like 'legally blind' and 'partially sighted'. It doesn't mean people who rely on corrective lenses whose corrected vision is more or less normal.
- pxc 3y ago
  Those survey results probably don't mean what you think they mean. Among blind and visually impaired people, the term 'blind' can include basically anyone who is legally blind— it does not refer exclusively to the totally blind. My mom has been legally blind for almost two decades now, IIRC. It's only within the past year or two that her computer and phone usage has begun to switch to primarily screen reader-based rather than primarily magnification-based. From then and continuing on to this day, she chooses between the terms 'low vision' and 'blind' (and various others) mainly according to what she thinks the person she's talking to will most easily understand. (Although over the course of time she has gradually shifted toward favoring the word 'blind', both as she becomes more connected to the local blind community and as her vision continues to degrade). One thing to keep in mind is that going from normal/visual phone usage to a screen reader is like learning to walk all over again (and discovering that some paths are not for you anymore). It's starting over from zero, and it sucks. Going from typical visual usage to jacking up your font sizes is basically free, and using some kind of magnification a fairly natural next step. For people with progressive vision loss, there may be decades where one is 'blind', but it's still not efficient or opportune to drop everything and switch to relying exclusively on a screen reader.
DonHopkins 3y ago
Pie menus support "low touch accuracy" out of the box in a way that benefits everyone, and helps train novice users to become experts by "rehearsal". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39227843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39227843 Fitts' Law intuitively and mathematically explains why pie menus are faster and have lower error rates than linear menus. Fitts's Law says in effect: the bigger and closer a target is, the faster and more reliably you can hit it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law >Fitts's law (often cited as Fitts' law) is a predictive model of human movement primarily used in human–computer interaction and ergonomics. The law predicts that the time required to rapidly move to a target area is a function of the ratio between the distance to the target and the width of the target. Fitts's law is used to model the act of pointing, either by physically touching an object with a hand or finger, or virtually, by pointing to an object on a computer monitor using a pointing device. It was initially developed by Paul Fitts. Pie menus both minimize the target distance, while also maximizing the target size. And the physical directional gesture required to select an item does not demand your continuous visual attention and cognitively taxing hand-eye feedback loop. You don't need to look at the screen to select items from a pie menu, so you can reliably "mouse ahead" or gesture, which is impossible with linear menus. Another advantage is that they support "rehearsal", by seamlessly training novice users to become experts. Unlike keyboard shortcuts, the physical action of the novice and expert is the same, only experts can do it faster without looking at the screen. Unlike traditional "invisible" gesture recognition systems like Palm Graffiti or StrokePlus.net, pie menus are "self revealing" in that the can pop up a menu that shows all the available options and their direction. It's quite difficult to learn which invisible gestures are available and what they all mean, but easy to discover them with pie menus. Pie menus also support "browsing" and "reselection", which gesture recognition doesn't, allowing users to correct errors or even browse around highlighting every item to preview its effects. Since pie menus can provide live continuous preview of the effects of the selected item in the application itself (which is especially nice when you use the distance as a parameter, for example a pie menu that lets you create eight objects, with a pull-out size parameter: the more you pull out, the bigger the object previewed at your cursor, which switches to different objects as you browse around the menu, then turns into a real object when you release the button), so you can see the effect and release the button when it's perfect, or go back to the center to cancel. Often the only feedback you need is the live preview of the pie menu selection, and popping up a menu would be a distraction. Once you learn the directions, you can quickly select items by stroking in the desired direction without even looking at the menu, so pie menus can perform the selection without popping up the menu. There's no need to pop up the "self revealing" menu until you stop dragging the mouse, or you can pop it up instantly by "clicking up" the menu. So a novice can get directions instantly, while an expert can fly ahead without waiting for directions, then pause for directions or confirmation that you have the right selection at any time. There's a smooth escalator moving you up the learning curve every time you use a pie menu, training your muscle memory through rehearsal. That is how pie menus "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". We performed an empirical study in 1988 that measured eight-item pie menus to be 15% faster than linear menus, with less frequent errors. An Empirical Comparison of Pie vs. Linear Menus (Jack Callahan, Don Hopkins, Mark Weiser, and Ben Shneiderman, Proc. ACM CHI’88): https://donhopkins.medium.com/an-empirical-comparison-of-pie-vs-linear-menus-466c6fdbba4b https://donhopkins.medium.com/an-empirical-comparison-of-pie... >Pie menus gain over traditional linear menus by reducing target seek time, lowering error rates by fixing the distance factor and increasing the target size in Fitts’s Law, minimizing the drift distance after target selection, and are, in general, subjectively equivalent to the linear style. [...] >Pilot study results: A pilot study of 16 subjects showed that users were approximately 15% faster with the pie menus and that errors were less frequent with pie menus. Statistically significant differences were found for item seek time but not task type. Subjects were split on their subjective preference of pie and linear menus. Some commented that they were able to visually isolate an item easier with linear menus and that it was hard to control the selection in pie menus because of the sensitivity of the pie menu selection mechanism. These subjects tended to be the most mouse naive of all whereas those who had heard of or seen a mouse/cursor controlled system but had not used one extensively tended to prefer pie menus. The most mouse naive users, while finding linear menus easier, tended to be better at pie menus and commented that with practice, they would probably be superior and in fact prefer the pie menus because of their speed and minimization of hand movement with the mouse. Not surprisingly, therefore, most of those preferring linear menus did not have a strong preference on the scaled subjective questionnaire. More about Fitts's Law and pie menu in this thread from Sept 27, 2022 on: Cairo: Alternative Windows Desktop: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32992673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32992673 More info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39228342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39228342
mcguire 3y ago
Or, you could just not have the "low-*" versions and tell anyone who needed or wanted them, "Tough." I wouldn't advise it, though.
dmazzoni 3y ago
Assistive technology keeps growing and improving, though. These days most operating systems already come with a voice control feature, designed for people with a motor impairment to use their device entirely by voice. When you add alt text to an image button, you're not just enabling a blind user to hear a description, you're also enabling someone with carpal tunnel to speak the name of that button to activate it. Most other accessibility APIs and preferences have multiple use cases like that, too. That's why accessibility is designed the way it is: you're not modifying your app to work with specific disabilities, you're adding missing semantics and respecting user accessibility preferences, and assistive technology adapts things to work with different users.

threatofrain 3y ago

I think eventually we're heading to website as data with clients remixing the data in a way you don't expect; i.e., the final output will be a mishmash of sources.

blowski 3y ago
Sounds like "the semantic web", which has been a great idea just about to take for about 20 years now.
- threatofrain 3y ago
  The problem is that the web isn't semantic enough; I mean, when considering the use case of reading documents, we don't even have a table of contents element.
  - blowski 3y ago
    The vast majority of web content is published on sites that want people to use the content in their extremely curated walled garden. Making it easy to mash up content and integrate it with other sites is the exact opposite of what's happening on Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, et al.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
CuriouslyC 3y ago
The opposite of that actually. Nobody is going to bother with websites if it's just data that gets slurped up by AI and fed back to people, it's a lot of work for no payout. People who make websites are going to make them interactive multimedia experiences that pull you away from the chatbot to feel something. The New York Times the information dump has no future, the New York Times the interactive multimedia social game and event hub with emotionally stirring stories, pictures and video can survive.
- freedomben 3y ago
  I can't speak to GP, but AI is exactly what I had in mind when I read their comment. With AI transforming website content, the sites themselves just become data sources. You could be right though, especially with more and more sites blocking robots. Legitimate companies might just have to shrug and say, "this site prohibits me from reading it. You'll have to go there instead) though that seems like a legal problem to me rather than a technical one.
  - CuriouslyC 3y ago
    Sites that try to use robots.txt to stay relevant are going to fail spectacularly. All their information is going to leak or be provided by other sources, and they're going to get forgotten. The only people who will be able to make a living selling data will be the ones who can produce data so unique that nobody else can claim to have created it, and for which training on it leaves an unmistakable signature that makes litigation easy.
jmilloy 3y ago
Why do you think that? Everything I see suggests the opposite.

ijwann 3y ago

Good luck getting your organization to support building two apps. And even if you succeed once, good luck getting your organization to ship features twice every single time they want to build something. What will end up happening is you have your normal app which isn't accessible, and a second app with a fraction of your features that is likely often broken because it's hard to prioritize.

threatofrain 3y ago
You have one backend and two frontends, one of which is simplified and all-about-the-data. I daresay there's the possibility that it's easier to create two websites than it is to make one website do two things.
- extra88 3y ago
  You might have heard of this thing called "responsive web design," (RWD) it's pretty popular. RWD is all about it not being better to make two websites (in that case, "mobile" vs. "desktop") instead of one.
  - threatofrain 3y ago
    In some ways this is similar. With responsive design we're talking about orthogonal views in the sense that given enough effort, the mobile and desktop experiences can be completely different, but of course in practice we're going to reuse components to save time. So just like we have desktop and mobile views, I'm just proposing one more view where you also get to reuse some of your components, and where you get to pushback on stuff like animations, rich interactions, or novelties.
    - extra88 3y ago
      There are already ways to make all those things conditional without creating an entirely new view. Only occasionally does the "accessible way" need to be in addition to what was planned all along, such as up, down, left, right arrow buttons beside a draggable map, you don't need a whole separate map for that.

kolanos 3y ago

iOS and Android largely do this for you as long as you use the platform's accessibility features.

AlienRobot 3y ago

People said it would take twice as long to make two versions of the same frontend, so they spent a hundred times as long making crossplatform, responsive, accessible GUIs that often feel terrible to use no matter who the user is.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

toast0 3y ago

Separate but equal isn't equal, and in the US, the ADA requires reasonable accommodation. It's not reasonable to require a second, separate app to cater to people with low vision/low dexterity, and chances are it's not going to have equal functionality (how many separate apps have equal functionality). It's better to require platforms to make accommodation a core feature (which they have largely done!) and require developers to use the accommodations. The ADA has a private right of action which means that there's distributed effort to find out what's a reasonable accommodation and also to drag businesses into compliance. There's plusses and minuses with this approach, of course.

acdha 3y ago
> It's not reasonable to require a second, separate app to cater to people with low vision/low dexterity, and chances are it's not going to have equal functionality Your first half of that sentence is debatable in absolute terms but in practice almost always right due to the second half. It can be reasonable to have an alternative version of something — for example, an audio or braille version of a printed document, or a ramp alternative to stairs – but the really hard part is actually keeping them in parity. If something is seen as a compliance obligation, I’d be shocked if that actually happened versus resources being allocated mostly to the extent that they’re cheaper than legal fees.

PaulStatezny 3y ago

> Wouldn't it be better to just have a "low vision" version of the app, a "low touch accuracy" version of the app, etc? I find your comment interesting because it speaks to users who can see, just not well. When I think of web accessibility, I (mostly) think of users who are entirely blind. While it turns out: ~80% of screen reader users are blind. The other ~20% may be partially vision impaired, or sometimes not visually impaired at all (but use it due to things like dyslexia). [1] ~2.4% of Americans are visually impaired and use (or could benefit from) a screen reader. [2] A "low vision" / "low touch accuracy" version of an app would likely be serving less than 0.5% (20% of 2.4%, see above) of your userbase. (As opposed to simply supporting screen readers in the "regular" version of the app.) Doesn't seem like a priority to optimize for 0.5% of your userbase when you're just trying to vet an unproven idea. [1] https://www.tempertemper.net/blog/not-all-screen-reader-users-are-blind https://www.tempertemper.net/blog/not-all-screen-reader-user... [2] https://nfb.org/resources/blindness-statistics https://nfb.org/resources/blindness-statistics

IncreasePosts 3y ago
I was just giving examples of different types of accessibility needs, it wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list. You can imagine "no vision" as a type of "low vision", where vision = 0.0 if you'd like
madeofpalk 3y ago
Do you wear glasses? HoW many people do you know need corrective lenses?
- pxc 3y ago
  'Low vision' covers a lot of the same ground as phrases like 'legally blind' and 'partially sighted'. It doesn't mean people who rely on corrective lenses whose corrected vision is more or less normal.
pxc 3y ago
Those survey results probably don't mean what you think they mean. Among blind and visually impaired people, the term 'blind' can include basically anyone who is legally blind— it does not refer exclusively to the totally blind. My mom has been legally blind for almost two decades now, IIRC. It's only within the past year or two that her computer and phone usage has begun to switch to primarily screen reader-based rather than primarily magnification-based. From then and continuing on to this day, she chooses between the terms 'low vision' and 'blind' (and various others) mainly according to what she thinks the person she's talking to will most easily understand. (Although over the course of time she has gradually shifted toward favoring the word 'blind', both as she becomes more connected to the local blind community and as her vision continues to degrade). One thing to keep in mind is that going from normal/visual phone usage to a screen reader is like learning to walk all over again (and discovering that some paths are not for you anymore). It's starting over from zero, and it sucks. Going from typical visual usage to jacking up your font sizes is basically free, and using some kind of magnification a fairly natural next step. For people with progressive vision loss, there may be decades where one is 'blind', but it's still not efficient or opportune to drop everything and switch to relying exclusively on a screen reader.

DonHopkins 3y ago

Pie menus support "low touch accuracy" out of the box in a way that benefits everyone, and helps train novice users to become experts by "rehearsal". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39227843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39227843 Fitts' Law intuitively and mathematically explains why pie menus are faster and have lower error rates than linear menus. Fitts's Law says in effect: the bigger and closer a target is, the faster and more reliably you can hit it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law >Fitts's law (often cited as Fitts' law) is a predictive model of human movement primarily used in human–computer interaction and ergonomics. The law predicts that the time required to rapidly move to a target area is a function of the ratio between the distance to the target and the width of the target. Fitts's law is used to model the act of pointing, either by physically touching an object with a hand or finger, or virtually, by pointing to an object on a computer monitor using a pointing device. It was initially developed by Paul Fitts. Pie menus both minimize the target distance, while also maximizing the target size. And the physical directional gesture required to select an item does not demand your continuous visual attention and cognitively taxing hand-eye feedback loop. You don't need to look at the screen to select items from a pie menu, so you can reliably "mouse ahead" or gesture, which is impossible with linear menus. Another advantage is that they support "rehearsal", by seamlessly training novice users to become experts. Unlike keyboard shortcuts, the physical action of the novice and expert is the same, only experts can do it faster without looking at the screen. Unlike traditional "invisible" gesture recognition systems like Palm Graffiti or StrokePlus.net, pie menus are "self revealing" in that the can pop up a menu that shows all the available options and their direction. It's quite difficult to learn which invisible gestures are available and what they all mean, but easy to discover them with pie menus. Pie menus also support "browsing" and "reselection", which gesture recognition doesn't, allowing users to correct errors or even browse around highlighting every item to preview its effects. Since pie menus can provide live continuous preview of the effects of the selected item in the application itself (which is especially nice when you use the distance as a parameter, for example a pie menu that lets you create eight objects, with a pull-out size parameter: the more you pull out, the bigger the object previewed at your cursor, which switches to different objects as you browse around the menu, then turns into a real object when you release the button), so you can see the effect and release the button when it's perfect, or go back to the center to cancel. Often the only feedback you need is the live preview of the pie menu selection, and popping up a menu would be a distraction. Once you learn the directions, you can quickly select items by stroking in the desired direction without even looking at the menu, so pie menus can perform the selection without popping up the menu. There's no need to pop up the "self revealing" menu until you stop dragging the mouse, or you can pop it up instantly by "clicking up" the menu. So a novice can get directions instantly, while an expert can fly ahead without waiting for directions, then pause for directions or confirmation that you have the right selection at any time. There's a smooth escalator moving you up the learning curve every time you use a pie menu, training your muscle memory through rehearsal. That is how pie menus "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". We performed an empirical study in 1988 that measured eight-item pie menus to be 15% faster than linear menus, with less frequent errors. An Empirical Comparison of Pie vs. Linear Menus (Jack Callahan, Don Hopkins, Mark Weiser, and Ben Shneiderman, Proc. ACM CHI’88): https://donhopkins.medium.com/an-empirical-comparison-of-pie-vs-linear-menus-466c6fdbba4b https://donhopkins.medium.com/an-empirical-comparison-of-pie... >Pie menus gain over traditional linear menus by reducing target seek time, lowering error rates by fixing the distance factor and increasing the target size in Fitts’s Law, minimizing the drift distance after target selection, and are, in general, subjectively equivalent to the linear style. [...] >Pilot study results: A pilot study of 16 subjects showed that users were approximately 15% faster with the pie menus and that errors were less frequent with pie menus. Statistically significant differences were found for item seek time but not task type. Subjects were split on their subjective preference of pie and linear menus. Some commented that they were able to visually isolate an item easier with linear menus and that it was hard to control the selection in pie menus because of the sensitivity of the pie menu selection mechanism. These subjects tended to be the most mouse naive of all whereas those who had heard of or seen a mouse/cursor controlled system but had not used one extensively tended to prefer pie menus. The most mouse naive users, while finding linear menus easier, tended to be better at pie menus and commented that with practice, they would probably be superior and in fact prefer the pie menus because of their speed and minimization of hand movement with the mouse. Not surprisingly, therefore, most of those preferring linear menus did not have a strong preference on the scaled subjective questionnaire. More about Fitts's Law and pie menu in this thread from Sept 27, 2022 on: Cairo: Alternative Windows Desktop: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32992673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32992673 More info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39228342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39228342

mcguire 3y ago

Or, you could just not have the "low-*" versions and tell anyone who needed or wanted them, "Tough." I wouldn't advise it, though.

dmazzoni 3y ago

Assistive technology keeps growing and improving, though. These days most operating systems already come with a voice control feature, designed for people with a motor impairment to use their device entirely by voice. When you add alt text to an image button, you're not just enabling a blind user to hear a description, you're also enabling someone with carpal tunnel to speak the name of that button to activate it. Most other accessibility APIs and preferences have multiple use cases like that, too. That's why accessibility is designed the way it is: you're not modifying your app to work with specific disabilities, you're adding missing semantics and respecting user accessibility preferences, and assistive technology adapts things to work with different users.