[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.

[blowski]

No. They are sarcastically saying that people making those complaints are doing so figuratively, not literally. Find one person who has genuinely suffered a surprise headache after looking at this site and you’ll have a stronger argument.

Accessibility doesn’t mean everything should be available to everybody at all times. That would be universal direct accessibility, which is impossible. Those without the internet or computer access cannot use a grocery website, but the grocery store is still open, and thus the groceries are still indirectly accessible. Providing an elevator as well as stairs means the 2nd floor is universally accessible, even though some cannot use the stairs.

Here, the content is provided by default with an unusual design. That design is part of their brand experience, which is why it has been posted. Some people cannot view through that experience, but they can still reasonably access the content using assistive technology. Thus the website is indirectly accessible.

Remove the design and you make the experience inaccessible to me. These are trade offs, not absolutes.

[zagrebian]

> people making those complaints are doing so figuratively, not literally

You’re assuming. It’s probably not a good idea to base one’s website’s accessibility strategy on such assumptions. Headaches and eyestrain are a real problem for many people. For example, people turn on dark mode because they have trouble looking at white backgrounds late at night or early in the morning. The same rule probably applies to bright colors.

> Remove the design and you make the experience inaccessible to me. These are trade offs, not absolutes.

I don’t think trade-offs are necessary. The website can have a shrill design and be accessible at the same time. For example, if the website was compatible with the browsers’ reader modes, then users could view the site in a simple black and white design.

[blowski]

This is a pretty pointless conversation.

They're going to keep the design. I'm going to be happy about that. You're not.

[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...

[JohnFen]

> federal agencies and any institution that receives federal funding

I don't think that website is either a US federal agency or receives any US federal funding.

[toomanyrichies]

> I don't think that website is either a US federal agency or receives any US federal funding.

IMHO it's hard to tell either way, because their website wasn't designed with ease-of-use in mind.

That said, here's some facts I was able to gather on their business:

> Whilst IT research remains our primary focus, we now offer executive high-end commercial IT services to organisations with unique problems to solve.

> ...we also have a large body of knowledge of older systems, many of which have now gone full-circle and fallen into disuse, technology that has been abandoned and forgotten. We occasionally do projects involving those, especially when nobody else seems to remember how they worked. Our knowledge-base includes legacy programming languages such as Fortran, data conversion from obscure file formats, and even assembly language coding on various platforms.

Based on these quotes, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that they have clients in government.

[JohnFen]

OK, your comment here made me gird my loins and actually put up with reading the rest of their website.

Anything is possible, I suppose, but everything I've seen on that site leads me to think it's not a company at all, but a personal hobbyist's website, or perhaps that of a hobbyist club.

[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/

[blowski]

Where is the discrimination here?

[falcolas]

> Where is the discrimination here?

Restating the post I originally responded to:

> 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?

The key words from the comment are: "cannot look at it"

For comparison, some other similar discriminatory phrases from history: "cannot swim in it", "cannot drink from it", "cannot ride on it", "cannot enter it", "cannot buy it"

[blowski]

So because they cannot look at the design, that's discrimination, even if they _are_ able to access the content itself? Why don't you take legal action against them?