[deergomoo]

If you are creating tooling for people to create GUIs, it should always be possible to make those GUIs accessible. I’m not saying this one doesn’t—I don’t know if it does—but in the general case it absolutely should. Not everyone is going to bother, but not even giving people the ability would be deeply irresponsible.

[apitman]

Why is this the responsibility of GUI toolkit developers and not app developers? There's nothing stopping app developers from making a separate version for their app designed specifically for accessibility. This results in a better UX for the users and the toolkit developers.

[Someone]

https://www.accessibility.works/blog/alternate-separate-acce...:

“Why Alternate “Accessible” Website Versions Fail ADA And May Increase Legal Risk.

[…]

1. DOJ: All public accommodation’s websites must comply.

[…]

2. ADA = "Full & Equal Enjoyment"

[…]

3. Is a "Separate But Equal" approach discriminatory?”

I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think one can draw another conclusion from that than that having a separate app designed for accessibility is a big no-no.

Also, as a developer, you choose a GUI toolkit to make your life easier. Having good accessibility support then is a point in favor of a toolkit, just as, say, having lots of good-looking controls is one.

Possibly even more so, as implementing accessibility support is a huge undertaking. You need to be able to enable high-contrast mode, to set keyboard shortcuts, to use larger fonts, tone down animations, have an on-screen keyboard, etc.

[apitman]

* Your reference is talking about websites. The web is much easier to implement accessibility for than native OSes.

* It's talking about intentionally low quality, minimal-effort ADA compliance. Do you believe most blind people (simple example, there are many types of disabilities) would prefer a version of a tool that has basic (but decent) screen reader support built into a GUI toolkit, to a hand-tuned app built specifically to address their needs?

* Trying to legislate something as subjective as "Full & Equal Enjoyment" is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. I didn't realize the ADA regulations were that bad. By that definition, anyone with a disability can claim anything about a website that they don't like is preventing them from experiencing "Full & Equal Enjoyment".

* Them comparing websites using cheap ADA solutions to the civil rights movement is chef's kiss

> Also, as a developer, you choose a GUI toolkit to make your life easier. Having good accessibility support then is a point in favor of a toolkit, just as, say, having lots of good-looking controls is one.

I fully agree here. Accessibility is important and it's smart for toolkits to compete on such features. That's not what I'm pushing back against. I'm pushing back against the idea that responsibility for accessibility lies predominantly on GUI toolkit developers. There is nothing wrong with making a GUI toolkit that doesn't support accessibility. Accessibility support can be implemented/improved at multiple layers of the stack, but HN loves bringing this up because it's a meme with high virtue signalling value.