[Dylan16807]

You don't get to declare that something is an accessibility problem just because you don't like it, though.

You would rate the exact same formatting good or bad based entirely on whether the text next to it is a couple pixels larger. That does not sound like "accessibility".

Whether it's hard to read is an accessibility issue. But that's not your complaint.

[Lammy]

I'm happy to agree to disagree. Please forgive me if I am (hopefully!) just misreading the tone of these comments, but this exchange has seemed tiringly mean-spirited and argumentative to me. I'm not trying to convince you of some objective fault in HN's design, just sharing my experience to see if anyone else's is similar. My experiences will still be my reality even if the answer to that question is "no" :)

[Dylan16807]

I got snarky because you said "I'm glad it's not a problem for you" when I never said the current design wasn't a problem. I read that as unwarrantedly dismissive!

I'm not disagreeing with your experience, I'm just disagreeing with part of the way you want to fix it.

[asutekku]

I have to agree with the previous poster. Sometimes i have absolutely no clue what the article is about because the original title has been edited and the url is not immediately recognizable.

[Dylan16807]

> Sometimes i have absolutely no clue what the article is about because the original title has been edited and the url is not immediately recognizable.

Yes, that happens... but I'm not sure how it applies to this specific case? The URL is the same two words that were removed from the title.

I'm not defending HN's title edits in general.