Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SilasX 2449 days ago
I’m not blind. But I would be furious if I had to call to place an order rather than submit a web form, merely because the site couldn’t be bothered to adhere to basic standards and instead used meth-addled “code artisans” practicing resume-driven development.
2 comments

Coming from somebody who is disabled: this is what life is like for a disabled person.

There are many, many indignities that we encounter, even nearly constantly due to the way society ignores our needs.

If you go and check out some disabled activists' Twitter accounts, you may be shocked at the anger and the lack of "decency". But, put yourself in their shoes, and realize that they have been forced to deal with systematic and near-constant indignities, and many of them have been forced to fight for their mere existence as human beings.

I agree with such activists. It's stupid to have to make a phone call when a website should be perfectly capable for this role.

While I don't claim to know what such disabilities are like, I feel I have experienced analogous frustrations. Back when Linux on the desktop and Firefox were catching on, I remember it being a crapshoot about whether critical sites (like banks and tax filing) would play nice with non-IE browsers, and I had to have a PC/Windows/IE setup as a fallback. Same issue: the use the meth-addled design that breaks any non-mainstream clients.

I also use Tridactyl (and before it, Vimium and pentadactyl), an extension that lets you click links from the keyboard, which is a huge UI improvement and (along with other keyboard input methods) speeds up web browsing significantly. It's generally good at detecting links, but the same sloppy design and over-clever features make clickable elements undetectable and frustrate this enhancement.

And for the kicker ... often times, these improvements "for the disabled" end up benefiting everyone else even more, but designers/buisdev people don't get it! See my previous comment about the Curb Cut Effect [1].

The web was designed with screen readers in mind. It is a serious regression to find major sites telling blind users to call in. This isn't the 60s.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195054

What standards should those sites adhere to?

Are those standards sufficiently complete as to be referenced by regulatory agencies?

If so, what's keeping us from adopting standards or at least recommendations for legal compliance?

I think that Domino's assertion is that the current framework is too vague, but I regularly see the argument that there are standards to follow. So... What are those standards, and why aren't they law?

WCAG 2.1

Yes.

Shrug.

See above.