4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- lesostep 3y ago
  I want to add that sighted people use accessibility tools too. Jacking up font size is convenient if you looking at the screen from afar (following recipe, for example). Or if you read from a device with friends and don't want to accidentally butt heads. Screen readers are convenient if you want to do anything while reading (I listen to at least view articles per week that way. I'll even admit to reading HN comments with screen reader. Surprisingly accessible). It's almost always a mixed usage: one minute users use a feature, and the next minute they are fine without it. But those features are very nice to have
  - pxc 3y ago
    > those features are very nice to have Definitely. I think one good way to think about it is as a matter of engineering excellence. Yes, there are moral and legal cases for accessibility features, but it's also a dimension of making software that is great to use and demonstrates attention to important details. It's part of the fit and finish and general UX. Accessibility features are absolutely vital for some users, but for other users they are still nice to have. And to everyone, they are signals of quality, care, and maturity.

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.

lesostep 3y ago
I want to add that sighted people use accessibility tools too. Jacking up font size is convenient if you looking at the screen from afar (following recipe, for example). Or if you read from a device with friends and don't want to accidentally butt heads. Screen readers are convenient if you want to do anything while reading (I listen to at least view articles per week that way. I'll even admit to reading HN comments with screen reader. Surprisingly accessible). It's almost always a mixed usage: one minute users use a feature, and the next minute they are fine without it. But those features are very nice to have
- pxc 3y ago
  > those features are very nice to have Definitely. I think one good way to think about it is as a matter of engineering excellence. Yes, there are moral and legal cases for accessibility features, but it's also a dimension of making software that is great to use and demonstrates attention to important details. It's part of the fit and finish and general UX. Accessibility features are absolutely vital for some users, but for other users they are still nice to have. And to everyone, they are signals of quality, care, and maturity.