3 ms·

The idea that "they don't need text controls because most people have glasses, so their vision isn't bad enough" is one of the reasons projects start thinking a

The idea that "they don't need text controls because most people have glasses, so their vision isn't bad enough" is one of the reasons projects start thinking about a11y too late.

LoganDark 3y ago
That may be true, but isn't what I said. I think you're misrepresenting the actual percentage of people who actually need to use text controls in saying that about half the population doesn't have perfect vision. You may notice that those are two different things. It's like using the percentage of people without perfect control of their legs as a proxy for how many people actually need to use a wheelchair. Yes wheelchair accessibility is important, yes many people need to use one, but no not everyone without perfect control of their legs need to be in a wheelchair. Sometimes they only need crutches, etc.
- TheRealPomax 3y ago
  No, it's like arguing that all people who are no longer in their prime need walk-on ramps or lifts in addition to stairs. Which they do. And accessibility-oriented architecture already knows that, and has been operating on that principle for decades. So in the exact same way: because half the planet needs glasses, no matter for how "trivial to correct" or actually bad their eyes are, your UI needs controls that allow people with any level of visual disability to compensate beyond what their glasses might correct for, if the medium your UI is presented in does not offer (adequate, because that's not a given) controls already.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    > No, it's like arguing that all people who are no longer in their prime need walk-on ramps or lifts in addition to stairs. That's basically exactly what I said yeah. Which isn't correct because plenty of people who are not in their prime still do not need those things. It doesn't help with making your point. Instead I'd cite statistics on how many people actually use these accessibility features, and not some far more general group of "how many people are not perfect". Also, in case it isn't clear, I'm not arguing against accessibility features at all, I just think this part of your argument was a bit misleading.

The idea that "they don't need text controls because most people have glasses, so their vision isn't bad enough" is one of the reasons projects start thinking about a11y too late.

LoganDark 3y ago

That may be true, but isn't what I said. I think you're misrepresenting the actual percentage of people who actually need to use text controls in saying that about half the population doesn't have perfect vision. You may notice that those are two different things. It's like using the percentage of people without perfect control of their legs as a proxy for how many people actually need to use a wheelchair. Yes wheelchair accessibility is important, yes many people need to use one, but no not everyone without perfect control of their legs need to be in a wheelchair. Sometimes they only need crutches, etc.

TheRealPomax 3y ago
No, it's like arguing that all people who are no longer in their prime need walk-on ramps or lifts in addition to stairs. Which they do. And accessibility-oriented architecture already knows that, and has been operating on that principle for decades. So in the exact same way: because half the planet needs glasses, no matter for how "trivial to correct" or actually bad their eyes are, your UI needs controls that allow people with any level of visual disability to compensate beyond what their glasses might correct for, if the medium your UI is presented in does not offer (adequate, because that's not a given) controls already.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  > No, it's like arguing that all people who are no longer in their prime need walk-on ramps or lifts in addition to stairs. That's basically exactly what I said yeah. Which isn't correct because plenty of people who are not in their prime still do not need those things. It doesn't help with making your point. Instead I'd cite statistics on how many people actually use these accessibility features, and not some far more general group of "how many people are not perfect". Also, in case it isn't clear, I'm not arguing against accessibility features at all, I just think this part of your argument was a bit misleading.