[zagrebian]

> Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is, you may have an underlying health condition which has otherwise gone un-noticed.

So they’re saying that they’re aware that their website is inaccessible to some people with certain health conditions, and they don’t intend to do anything about it.

That’s like if a grocery store with a staircase at the front door put up a sign that says, “If you have trouble climbing these stairs, consult your doctor. No person with healthy legs should have trouble climbing these stairs. You may have a health condition.”

I mean, thanks for the advice, but you’re still excluding people.

[flappyeagle]

This is not a grocery store. It’s a niche enthusiast website.

It’s supposed to be fun. Many fun things “exclude” people. Sports for instance. Music. Painting. There might be accessible versions. There are also inaccessible ones that trade off artistic expression over other factors. The internet is a big place. There’s room for all of it.

[zagrebian]

I disagree. There’s no room for inaccessible websites. You don’t have to trade off anything. You can have both artistic expression and accessibility at the same time. For example, the website can make sure that it’s compatible with the browsers’ reader views. Then users can switch to reader view to read the text in simple black and white.

[whostolemyhat]

It is accessible - it matches standards and is available in text-only browsers.

[mschuster91]

The question is, can it be considered accessible under legal standards (i.e. US ADA or the EU EEA, which is slated to come into final effect in 2025)?

In general, courts tend to follow not just the letter of the law but also the intent, so it's better to go on the safer side.

[zagrebian]

I disagree. A website that induces eyestrain and headaches in some people is not fully accessible, unless the user has an easy way to switch to a simpler design. Browsers have reader modes, but the website in question is not compatible with them.

[pjerem]

As someone who suffers from strong eyestrain issues, I strongly disagree.

There are an infinite number of possible disabilities. Most disabled people already have tools to accommodate.

If you can't see little things, you can zoom. If you have issue with poor contrasts, you can configure your display and/or your browser and/or your OS. If you can't see anything, you can use screen readers. If you have issues with low contrasts, you configure your computer or your browser to override contrasts.

Being "accessible" doesn't mean that your website have to think about every possible disability and that you have to provide a solution. It means that you use decent defaults styles but above all, it means that your website continues to function when it's degraded by the user agent.

Someone with eyestrain issues will not hate you because you made a bad color choice for his disability. But he will probably hate you if him changing the colors or the zooming ratio renders your website unusable.

edit : Also I have strong issues with contrasts due to amblyopia + astigmatism and this page was a pleasure to read. Black on light gray with slight font shadow is exactly what my eyes need.

[zagrebian]

How can a user with eyestrain issues change the colors of a website?

[pmelendez]

The tone of the website has a very tongue-in-cheek tone to me. Taking it seriously is like doing journalism research using The Onion.

[zagrebian]

How does a person who can’t read the text because of their health issues know that it’s tongue in cheek?

[blowski]

Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it? Should Picasso not have bothered painting since some people are blind? Should Tolstoy not have written War and Peace because some people do not have the reading level to cope with such a complex book? Should Maria Callas not have sung so beautifully because the deaf would never be able to hear her?

If you are there for the content and not the design, then it works fine with a browser like Lynx. Thus all the content is entirely accessible.

[zagrebian]

A website can be designed so that it adapts to the user’s needs. For example, there exist CSS media features that allow websites to honor the user’s preferences for color scheme, reduced motion, and increased contrast, among others.

https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/mediaqueries-5/#mf-user-p...

The website can both have a shrill design and be accessible at the same time.

[blowski]

Can you give me a concrete example of somebody who is unable to access the content, albeit using Lynx or with settings changes to Firefox?

[zagrebian]

(Copy-pasted from other comment:) The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints.

[falcolas]

> Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it?

FWIW, the law says yes. And the law is right, IMO: we should not deprive a minority of their rights just because the majority is fine with the status quo.

And everyone will become disabled if they don't die young. Eyesight in particular is pretty much guaranteed to decline with age.

[blowski]

Which law? Show me.

[toomanyrichies]

They may be referring to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act [1], which:

> ...requires federal agencies and any institution that receives federal funding to make electronic technology and information equally accessible for individuals with disabilities. This means that an organization's website must have all features just as accessible for individuals with disabilities as these features are for individuals without disabilities. For example, it must be equally easy for an individual with a disability to find information about an organization's services on their website as it is for non-disabled individuals to access this information.

This is an American law, but obviously other countries may have their own equivalents.

1. https://acs-web.com/digital-marketing-lexicon/section-508-of...

[falcolas]

The Americans with Disabilities Act.

From ada.gov:

> The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in everyday activities.

And specific to web sites:

https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/

[hgsgm]

Do you actually know someone who can't read the text, or are you concern trolling?

Since you quoted and responded to it, it seems you are in agreement with the site authors. There are 10 themes. do all of them make any one person's eyes bleed?

[zagrebian]

> Do you actually know someone who can't read the text, or are you concern trolling?

The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints.

> There are 10 themes. do all of them make any one person's eyes bleed?

The theme selector is at the bottom of the page. It’s unlikely that a person who gets a headache/eyestrain from the design will find it in time.

[AlexandrB]

So the answer is no, you don't know anyone who can't read the text.

People post all kind of things online, especially hyperbole. As one of the other FAQ questions notes a lot of people also complain about their eyes bleeding, but this has never actually happened.

[zagrebian]

When users complain about headaches and eyestrain, it’s probably better to take them seriously.

[topaz0]

Almost everything posted online is hyperbole