7 ms·

As a side note, designing well for disabilities often translates to better design as well. Those alternate text labels and better layout for screen readers can

As a side note, designing well for disabilities often translates to better design as well. Those alternate text labels and better layout for screen readers can make your site easier for the googlebot to read. You can find navigation and flow issues. Buttons that are hard to click are harder for everyone to click, even if some can manage. Or those buttons are really hard for everyone on tablets to hit because they are too small.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
The reverse is also sometimes true: If you use best practices, your website will hopefully be relatively accessible.
speg 12y ago
This happens in the real world too, aka the sidewalk effect. The cutouts in the sidewalk for wheelchairs are now used by everyone else too for their: strollers, bikes, shopping carts, and anyone else who doesn't want to raise their foot an extra couple of inches.
- lmm 12y ago
  OTOH I've seen pedestrians almost-hit by an out-of-control car that would have been stopped by a proper kerb but instead hit one of those ramps.
  - colanderman 12y ago
    I've seen multiple bicyclists almost hit by in-controls cars because they couldn't ride safely on the sidewalks without those ramps. (Yes, riding on sidewalks is technically illegal. There are many places where it's much much safer and there are no pedestrians to bother.)
    - JoshTriplett 12y ago
      > Yes, riding on sidewalks is technically illegal. That differs by jurisdiction; in many places it's completely legal.
    - bunderbunder 12y ago
      In most cases you're more likely to be hit by a car if you're riding on the sidewalk. Last numbers I suggest that your risk of being killed by a car is about twice as high when you're on the sidewalk. The reason is simple: Bikes move quickly, and bikes on the sidewalk are much harder for motorists to see than bikes on the street. That makes it extremely difficult - sometimes impossible - for drivers to see or anticipate when a bike is about to cross a street, alley, or driveway. Meanwhile, cyclists are relatively unaware of their surroundings compared to pedestrians, for the same reason that motorists are: They're moving faster. These two factors can easily combine to create a sudden use-of-space conflict that cyclists never win.
      - GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
        That might the case for bikes on the pavement in general, but there are some stretches of road where the road would be more dangerous.
      - mreiland 12y ago
        lmao, "use-of-space conflict"
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Just take a lane already, and be where you're supposed to be.
      - na85 12y ago
        No way. Drivers where I live are terrible. Three friends of mine were hit while road cycling in a span of 4 months. It's far, far safer to be on the sidewalk where I live.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        You're less visible on the sidewalk than in a lane, and you pose a threat to others. I'd almost go so far as to say, "Cycle where you're supposed to, or don't cycle." Moving in unexpected ways in unexpected places is what leads to collisions.
        Silhouette 12y ago
        While your factual statements are true, and cyclists on sidewalks can certainly be a menace, I don't think it's really tenable to argue that cyclists should always be textbook road users unless you also ensure that everyone driving larger and motorised vehicles also plays by the rules. I live in a city known for having many cyclists, and there are always tensions between the local cycling population and the authorities about the poor level of law enforcement against dangerous drivers. Of course, there is also a poor level of law enforcement against cyclists doing dumb and illegal things. The difference is that when something goes wrong, it's usually the cyclist who ends up injured or dead, not the motorist. So while in an ideal world we'd all get along nicely and play by the rules, I don't tend to get angry at cyclists whose choices are illegal but obviously safer (as in, I've read the actual research and current law and/or public policy clearly doesn't promote the safest option, not just doing something that intuitively feels safer but maybe isn't really).
        dllthomas 12y ago
        "The difference is that when something goes wrong, it's usually the cyclist who ends up injured or dead, not the motorist." In the case of riding on sidewalks where it is inappropriate, it's also frequently a pedestrian. "I don't tend to get angry at cyclists whose choices are illegal but obviously safer (as in, I've read the actual research and current law and/or public policy clearly doesn't promote the safest option, not just doing something that intuitively feels safer but maybe isn't really)." In those cases, I agree that the cyclist should do what's safest (presuming it's safe enough - on balance - for everyone involved). So should drivers of vehicles, for that matter. My understanding is that taking the lane, where traffic is moving at a speed the cyclist can keep up with, is the best way of keeping everyone safe (I wouldn't be recommending it otherwise). You are right where everyone who might hit you can best see you. I say this as someone who cycles in a big city fairly regularly, with a spouse who bikes in a big city even more regularly, in the wake of biking safety classes. I'm not just an annoyed driver/pedestrian/whatever trying to keep the cyclist down.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    I have seen thousands of wheelchair users. I have never seen a car that i) would have been stopped by a kerb and ii) would not have been stopped by a ramp. Your point illustrates the subject line nicely. Very many people have a disability, yet you're suggesting very rare benefits of keeping kerbs that hamper people with disabilities.
  - RobAley 12y ago
    Bear in mind that, if that really happens, it is a much, much less frequent occurrence than people being aided by the dropped kerbs and not stumbling/falling with pushchairs, wheelchairs or unsteady feet when mounting full height curbs . The proper fix for that also isn't making kerbs full height again.
  - bottled_poe 12y ago
    Umm... Perhaps address the actual problem here, which would be poor driving?
- nailer 12y ago
  A lot of skaters and kids on scooters and have become injured thanks to the those rubber stoppers. You can't rely on them if you're disabled, because they're not on every corner. I've also read that it's cheaper to give disabled people a full time minder than to run these programmes. Solutions that start with 'let's change the world' never, ever work. Let's fix screenreaders. And help the blind by analysing what;'s in front of them, rather than changing it.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Which "these programmes" are you referring to?
    - nailer 12y ago
      Jackhammering street concerns and installing rubber bits with a texture that said to help the blind.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        Isn't the cost essentially zero if you just install them when you're doing other work?
        nailer 12y ago
        Depends on the price of the rubber bits or the moulds for the concrete ones.
        Sanddancer 12y ago
        Concrete molds for curbs are built in-situ to deal with the situation of that particular curb, and the rubber bits are at most $200, so the cost really is fairly negligible.
      - djur 12y ago
        Could you provide a link? I've never seen rubber bits added to a sidewalk before.
- Goosey 12y ago
  There was a great TED talk about how cities which are well designed for the disabled (in the case of this talk, the blind) are well designed for all. http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_downey_design_with_the_blind_in_mind http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_downey_design_with_the_blind_... Definitely a great concept to keep in mind.
- judk 12y ago
  Indeed: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design
fionatg 12y ago
I agree, it correlates well with "think before you code"
acdha 12y ago
This is a great, unfortunately under-appreciated point. In many ways it's similar to good responsive design – if you can't maintain the pretense that you can cram every control onto a screen, you're forced to actually think about what is most important to the person using your app. (One bit of serendipity: sites which were designed to be accessible were ahead of the curve for touchscreens, too. Designers could fool themselves into thinking a 6px button was a good idea when they have a high-precision mouse but the first iPad made everyone appreciate how bad that assumption is)
wmeredith 12y ago
This is such an important point for non-tech or non-design folks to understand. Accessible content-focused design is easy to use. It's also easy to code and easy to for search engines to crawl, making it easy to promote and share.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

The reverse is also sometimes true: If you use best practices, your website will hopefully be relatively accessible.

speg 12y ago

This happens in the real world too, aka the sidewalk effect. The cutouts in the sidewalk for wheelchairs are now used by everyone else too for their: strollers, bikes, shopping carts, and anyone else who doesn't want to raise their foot an extra couple of inches.

lmm 12y ago
OTOH I've seen pedestrians almost-hit by an out-of-control car that would have been stopped by a proper kerb but instead hit one of those ramps.
- colanderman 12y ago
  I've seen multiple bicyclists almost hit by in-controls cars because they couldn't ride safely on the sidewalks without those ramps. (Yes, riding on sidewalks is technically illegal. There are many places where it's much much safer and there are no pedestrians to bother.)
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    > Yes, riding on sidewalks is technically illegal. That differs by jurisdiction; in many places it's completely legal.
  - bunderbunder 12y ago
    In most cases you're more likely to be hit by a car if you're riding on the sidewalk. Last numbers I suggest that your risk of being killed by a car is about twice as high when you're on the sidewalk. The reason is simple: Bikes move quickly, and bikes on the sidewalk are much harder for motorists to see than bikes on the street. That makes it extremely difficult - sometimes impossible - for drivers to see or anticipate when a bike is about to cross a street, alley, or driveway. Meanwhile, cyclists are relatively unaware of their surroundings compared to pedestrians, for the same reason that motorists are: They're moving faster. These two factors can easily combine to create a sudden use-of-space conflict that cyclists never win.
    - GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
      That might the case for bikes on the pavement in general, but there are some stretches of road where the road would be more dangerous.
    - mreiland 12y ago
      lmao, "use-of-space conflict"
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Just take a lane already, and be where you're supposed to be.
    - na85 12y ago
      No way. Drivers where I live are terrible. Three friends of mine were hit while road cycling in a span of 4 months. It's far, far safer to be on the sidewalk where I live.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        You're less visible on the sidewalk than in a lane, and you pose a threat to others. I'd almost go so far as to say, "Cycle where you're supposed to, or don't cycle." Moving in unexpected ways in unexpected places is what leads to collisions.
        Silhouette 12y ago
        While your factual statements are true, and cyclists on sidewalks can certainly be a menace, I don't think it's really tenable to argue that cyclists should always be textbook road users unless you also ensure that everyone driving larger and motorised vehicles also plays by the rules. I live in a city known for having many cyclists, and there are always tensions between the local cycling population and the authorities about the poor level of law enforcement against dangerous drivers. Of course, there is also a poor level of law enforcement against cyclists doing dumb and illegal things. The difference is that when something goes wrong, it's usually the cyclist who ends up injured or dead, not the motorist. So while in an ideal world we'd all get along nicely and play by the rules, I don't tend to get angry at cyclists whose choices are illegal but obviously safer (as in, I've read the actual research and current law and/or public policy clearly doesn't promote the safest option, not just doing something that intuitively feels safer but maybe isn't really).
        dllthomas 12y ago
        "The difference is that when something goes wrong, it's usually the cyclist who ends up injured or dead, not the motorist." In the case of riding on sidewalks where it is inappropriate, it's also frequently a pedestrian. "I don't tend to get angry at cyclists whose choices are illegal but obviously safer (as in, I've read the actual research and current law and/or public policy clearly doesn't promote the safest option, not just doing something that intuitively feels safer but maybe isn't really)." In those cases, I agree that the cyclist should do what's safest (presuming it's safe enough - on balance - for everyone involved). So should drivers of vehicles, for that matter. My understanding is that taking the lane, where traffic is moving at a speed the cyclist can keep up with, is the best way of keeping everyone safe (I wouldn't be recommending it otherwise). You are right where everyone who might hit you can best see you. I say this as someone who cycles in a big city fairly regularly, with a spouse who bikes in a big city even more regularly, in the wake of biking safety classes. I'm not just an annoyed driver/pedestrian/whatever trying to keep the cyclist down.
- DanBC 12y ago
  I have seen thousands of wheelchair users. I have never seen a car that i) would have been stopped by a kerb and ii) would not have been stopped by a ramp. Your point illustrates the subject line nicely. Very many people have a disability, yet you're suggesting very rare benefits of keeping kerbs that hamper people with disabilities.
- RobAley 12y ago
  Bear in mind that, if that really happens, it is a much, much less frequent occurrence than people being aided by the dropped kerbs and not stumbling/falling with pushchairs, wheelchairs or unsteady feet when mounting full height curbs . The proper fix for that also isn't making kerbs full height again.
- bottled_poe 12y ago
  Umm... Perhaps address the actual problem here, which would be poor driving?
nailer 12y ago
A lot of skaters and kids on scooters and have become injured thanks to the those rubber stoppers. You can't rely on them if you're disabled, because they're not on every corner. I've also read that it's cheaper to give disabled people a full time minder than to run these programmes. Solutions that start with 'let's change the world' never, ever work. Let's fix screenreaders. And help the blind by analysing what;'s in front of them, rather than changing it.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Which "these programmes" are you referring to?
  - nailer 12y ago
    Jackhammering street concerns and installing rubber bits with a texture that said to help the blind.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Isn't the cost essentially zero if you just install them when you're doing other work?
      - nailer 12y ago
        Depends on the price of the rubber bits or the moulds for the concrete ones.
        Sanddancer 12y ago
        Concrete molds for curbs are built in-situ to deal with the situation of that particular curb, and the rubber bits are at most $200, so the cost really is fairly negligible.
    - djur 12y ago
      Could you provide a link? I've never seen rubber bits added to a sidewalk before.
Goosey 12y ago
There was a great TED talk about how cities which are well designed for the disabled (in the case of this talk, the blind) are well designed for all. http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_downey_design_with_the_blind_in_mind http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_downey_design_with_the_blind_... Definitely a great concept to keep in mind.
judk 12y ago
Indeed: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design

fionatg 12y ago

I agree, it correlates well with "think before you code"

acdha 12y ago

This is a great, unfortunately under-appreciated point. In many ways it's similar to good responsive design – if you can't maintain the pretense that you can cram every control onto a screen, you're forced to actually think about what is most important to the person using your app. (One bit of serendipity: sites which were designed to be accessible were ahead of the curve for touchscreens, too. Designers could fool themselves into thinking a 6px button was a good idea when they have a high-precision mouse but the first iPad made everyone appreciate how bad that assumption is)

wmeredith 12y ago

This is such an important point for non-tech or non-design folks to understand. Accessible content-focused design is easy to use. It's also easy to code and easy to for search engines to crawl, making it easy to promote and share.