
New GitHub layout is less accessible - DreamScatter
The new web design layout on GitHub is awful and has less accessibility.<p>For example, the repository languages used to be at the top center of the page, while now I need to scroll past the bottom of the screen and find the information off centered in an awkward place.<p>The stars and other top bar links are off centered in an awkward way for the mouse and the eyes. Also, the profile tabs are less accessible because followers are now on the other side of the screen instead of in the convenient tab location.<p>Please contact GitHub with your feedback if you also think it&#x27;s less accessible design.
======
ebg13
> _the repository languages used to be at the top center of the page_

This is not an accessibility issue.

> _The stars and other top bar links are off centered_

This is not an accessibility issue.

> _followers are now on the other side of the screen_

This is not an accessibility issue.

You having different preferences has nothing to do with accessibility.

~~~
DreamScatter
I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself on everybody who disagrees
with my usage of the word "accessible", since I already explained in another
comment why it's not accessible. The word accessible is certainly appropriate.

~~~
ebg13
> _I already explained in another comment why it 's not accessible_

You've explained why you don't like it, not why it's any less accessible by
the definition that you're choosing to use.

~~~
DreamScatter
What is it with this dictionary language policing?

How about you actually discuss the topic instead of trying to make this an
issue about dictionary definitions.

You seem to be smart enough to realize that I'm not referring to disability
accessibility, so why don't you focus on the actual topic instead of
definitions?

Tell me why the new design is better when I can't see the repository languages
without additional input and mental effort, if you want to contribute to the
discussion.

~~~
darekkay
"Accessibility" has a special meaning in design/development. It's as you've
said "The new GitHub website is less performant" because you cannot access the
data as fast as before. It's confusing, and that's why you're facing
"dictionary language policing".

From "web accessibility" perspective (which does not only focus on
disabilities), none of your points are "valid". From UX perspective, it may be
a totally different thing.

You answer(s) were rather condemning, hence noone seems to be willing to
participate with you in a constructive debate. But let me give a try:

\- "languages are not at the top anymore" \- I almost never look for the
project languages. If I'm opening a specific project, I usually already know
what language it is using. If I'm searching for a project, I will use a
filter. For me, the change is perfectly fine.

\- "stars and tabs off-centered" \- I agree, it looks strange. Not a huge
thing for me, though.

As with _any_ redesign, there will _always_ be an initial pushback. But I
personally mostly like the new redesign.

~~~
ebg13
> _" Accessibility" has a special meaning in design/development_

Side note: The meaning doesn't change because we talk about a different space.
Access is access is access. If we ever apply the word differently, it's just
because we're focusing on different aspects of access.

But that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that OP is
whining about things they don't like while pretending that their taste has
anything to do with _any_ definition of accessibility and then getting
defensive about it.

Like you, I also think that de-prioritizing the languages was a positive
change. And yet it's OP's very first complaint under the guise of losing
access. Like they'd been wronged or something.

Calling the new design "awful", "awkward", and "less accessible" over really
petty marginal shit like stars, followers, and languages without recognizing
what was gained as a result (latest release!) or the subjectivity of taste
feels like a real "I demand to speak to your manager!" moment.

~~~
DreamScatter
Well, I'm tempted to setup my own self hosted git repository now, because I
really don't like the way it looks and how the information is organized.

Having the latest release on the side is not really a gain, it should be at
the top center, not on the side bar. I really prefer the way it was before
with a bar having the license and releases and so on. They could have just
added the release number there instead of making a terrible layout.

------
bluedays
I imagine some are going to be displeased by the layout changes but I'm not
convinced it's less accessible. I found it to be easier to navigate than the
old layout.

You say less accessibility, but is there any actual evidence behind this or is
this your opinion? The argument you are making seems entirely based upon your
opinion.

~~~
DreamScatter
As I stated originally, an example is that the repository languages are not
visible unless I scroll past the bottom of the screen. They should be at the
top center, where I can immediately understand a repository's languages. Now
they are off center in an awkward place not initially on-screen.

~~~
roryokane
In the context of design, “accessible” usually has a specific meaning of “able
to be used by people with disabilities”. For example, a design might put alt
text on images to be accessible to blind users, or make buttons big and easy
to click to be accessible to users with motor control problems.

You seem to be using “accessible” just to mean “has good design”, which will
confuse people.

~~~
DreamScatter
Actually, the "disability" variant of the definition is at the bottom of the
list in the dictionary entry for it: [https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/accessible](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/accessible)

Usually, the word accessible means "capable of being reached"

In this case, I mean that my eyes cannot immediately reach to the repository
languages because they are beyond the bottom of my screen, thus requiring
extra input to reach.

Additionally, it's an awkward place, requiring a bit of mental strain to reach
the repository languages. The original layout was more accessible and natural,
because it was immediately visible at the top center, requiring no additional
mental effort or input.

~~~
roryokane
The dictionary’s order of meanings is a poor authority for determining the
meaning of a word in a certain context. For example, if you’re reading a
geology research paper that repeatedly mentions “cleavage”, you should
interpret that word to mean “the splitting of rocks or crystals in a preferred
plane or direction”, even though that’s the last definition of “cleavage” in
the dictionary. Similarly, if someone is talking about design and using the
word “accessibility”, the disability-related meaning of the word becomes the
most likely meaning, even though that meaning is used in a small fraction of
all English text.

I do see why the normal meaning of “accessible” is appropriate here – you
aren’t able to visually access the information as quickly. In this case I
would use terms like “readable” or “information-dense” to avoid confusion.

------
XCSme
I like the style/iconography change but I hate the full width layout for the
header. On a 27" screen you now have to look left for the tabs and all the way
to the right to see number of stars. Before you could instantly see the count
of issues/stars to know popular a repository is by looking directly in the
center of the screen, now information feels unnecessarily scattered.

