Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by zagrebian 1156 days ago
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.
1 comments
blowski 1156 days ago
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?
link
zagrebian 1156 days ago
(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.
link
blowski 1156 days ago
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.

link
zagrebian 1156 days ago
> 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.

link
blowski 1156 days ago
This is a pretty pointless conversation.

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

link