4 ms·

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-ori

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.