
Asking for accessibility gets you nothing but grief. - ColinWright
http://lightgetsin.dreamwidth.org/312472.html
======
larsberg
That experience with acceessibility may be true for many websites, but
certainly isn't the case for Microsoft products (and I assume websites but do
not know for sure). I was on the Visual Studio Environment team, and we put an
incredible amount of effort into making sure everything was accessibile. This
meant not only screen readers, but also solid support for high-contrast or
large font size OS modes (used by people who are not blind but have extremely
limited vision). I spent many hours with my machine configured in super-low
resolutions and large font+contrast mode or trying to use the product with
only headphones and keyboard (monitor off).

I'm disappointed to hear that this person got such negative feedback from the
companies they contacted. It probably sounds cheesy, but I fixed quite a few
bugs related to accessibility and to this day I get a happy feeling
remembering the feedback we got from the customers for whom this support was
critical to their ability to earn a living as a software developer.

~~~
davux
I just wanted to say thanks. :) As a person with low vision (and a heavy VS
user), I'm grateful that there was so much attention to detail in the
development of VS with respect to accessibility.

I don't know if it has to do with US government ADA requirements or not, but
I'm glad that across the board Microsoft tends to build accessible software.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
> I don't know if it has to do with US government ADA requirements or not, but
> I'm glad that across the board Microsoft tends to build accessible software.

For Visual Studio 2005, at least, this certainly didn't hurt, but we also had
an incredibly dedicated and passionate group of people working on this issue,
putting together brown bags educating developer division on MSAA and building
accessible software, bringing in the creators of JAWS, logging bugs against
every nook and cranny of the product, etc. etc.

I wish I could remember the names of everyone who was involved in this, but
Sara Ford was instrumental. I'm glad I got to be a part of the whole thing,
even though my contributions were focused on project management-type stuff.

~~~
saraford
Ah, good times! It's always great to hear kind words about the accessibility
work with Visual Studio. When i first joined the Accessibility effort back in
2001, I coded in Visual Studio for 3 months without a monitor. I'll never
forget the nightmares of hearing VS talk to me in my sleep :)

I'm embarrassed I can't remember their names either. It was a great group of
people. (Hey Arron! Hey Lars!) But yes, the accessibility virtual team
consisted of about 50 people across the division all using JAWS, Window Eyes,
and other programs to open bugs. Really good times.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Hi Sara! :)

------
patio11
I get one of these emails every once in a while.

I understand that X Does Not Support Screenreaders is an imposition for folks
who have issues with standard browsers, particularly because there are an
awful lots of Xes. At the same time, X Does Not Support Screenreaders Because
Of Y, and there are an awful lot of Ys, too.

You might think that scanning a menu and formatting a menu in HTML are
approximately equally as easy. Not so much, no. There is an actual cost here.
For a restaurant menu, that is likely to only be in the couple hundreds of
dollars range. (<joke>I will entertain complaints about this from people who
don't bill in six minute increments.</joke>)

For more complex applications, this can -- easily -- run into the tens or
hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is easy to underestimate how expensive it
is because you only see the element from the set of Ys that caused non-
compatibility in the present instance, not the entire set of Ys which you have
to a) avoid and b) rigorously test against.

Getting down to brass tacks, the population which benefits from _any
particular_ engineering effort to address a Y is generally very small and,
often, far smaller in marginal value to the business than the cost of
addressing that Y. It has occasionally been the public policy of the US that
businesses are supposed to subsidize that population (see: Americans with
Disabilities Act, etc). Reasonable people can disagree on whether that is a
justice-maximizing policy.

~~~
extension
I see it not as a subsidy but more of an insurance premium. We all put in a
little bit of extra effort in exchange for not being royally screwed if it
happens to us. The progress of civilization seems to go hand-in-hand with
these sorts of arrangements. That's probably because there are so many ways to
be royally screwed that, if we didn't look out for each other, _everyone_
would be screwed in one way or another.

But there needs to be economic incentives for this to work (and regulation is
an economic incentive). Asking a business to be altruistic is like asking a
bear to not eat your trash.

~~~
patio11
_Asking a business to be altruistic is like asking a bear to not eat your
trash._

I get kinda annoyed by Capitalism Means Being A Heartless Bastard, because it
doesn't. Businesses are routinely altruistic for the same reason that
businesses are routinely greedy: like soylent green, they're made out of
people.

~~~
Confusion
That ignores the fact that some of those people, usually the ones in power,
are either heartless bastards or, more often, sufficiently involved in making
the company succeed to forego altruism. Making sure your employees keep their
jobs often counts for more than being kind to strangers.

However, there is another way in which capitalism makes things better: it does
its best to find markets for everything. For instance, Unilever sells very
small packages of washing powder in India, which is optimized to be used in
rivers. Previously, people in India did not have access to washing powder (the
regular large packages were too expensive and the stuff wasn't very useful in
the river). Now they have access to washing powder, which improves hygiene.

However, instructions on packages of washing powder are not printed in
braille.

~~~
waitwhat
_Previously, people in India did not have access to washing powder [...] Now
they have access to washing powder, which improves hygiene._

What an awful example.

Before washing powder, people used a bar of wash soap: cheaper, more
convenient, purpose-designed and doesn't come in single-use packages
encouraging you to use more than you need. (Wash soap also does a much better
job than any powder I have tried when hand-washing, although YMMV.)

This sounds like a classic case of a large corporation's marketing department
convincing people to buy a product that is more expensive and no better (and
possibly worse) than what they currently have.

For the definitive example of this, see Nestle
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#The_baby_mi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#The_baby_milk_issue)

~~~
Confusion
I don't think an explanation involving 'YMMV' and 'sounds like' is a
sufficient support for your opening statement that it is 'an awful example'.

They have simply entered a market with a competing product. Unless you have
evidence that their product is inferior to competing solutions and that they
know it, but intend to overcome that problem by outmarketing the competition,
then you really don't have any support for your position. Nestle has nothing
to do with it until then.

~~~
waitwhat
You're being ridiculous. I don't have access to Unilever's internal marketing
materials, and I doubt that you do either.

~~~
Confusion
You're the one accusing them of immoral behavior.

I'm only relaying what I've heard an employee tell and I assume good faith:
they changed their product such that it would be suitable for a new market and
a nice side effect is that the product becomes available at all (which is nice
because it improves matters). I have no stake in this and will readily revise
my ideas, but not based on an unsupported accusation.

~~~
waitwhat
(They're amoral, if anything.)

 _which is nice because it improves matters_

But you haven't actually demonstrated that it improves anything, you simply
asserted it without proof.

And this is not something that can just be assumed to be true, because the
pre-existing solution really is very good.

------
aaronbrethorst
iPhone developers: Never considered supporting Apple's VoiceOver technology
before? Setting aside positive karma, here's an awesome reason to do it: your
app needs to be accessible in order to work with the best functional testing
framework out there, KIF [1] (<https://github.com/square/kif>)

Write tests with KIF, ensure that blind and low-vision users can use your app,
ensure that your app is functional. What's not to love?

[1] i'm totally unaffiliated with Square, its creators. I just happen to be in
love with it, that's all.

~~~
sehugg
VoiceOver is crazy easy to integrate. If you use UIKit, you're already 95%
there. The visually impaired community is very social and you'll be winning
yourself some advocates if you do it right.

~~~
jhancock
Do you find low vision users to prefer text-to-speech instead of very-large-
high-contrast-text? I would be uncomfortable walking around with my phone
reading aloud to me and everyone else in earshot.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Try asking here: <http://www.afb.org/message_board_subjects2.asp?FolderID=7>

------
blauwbilgorgel
It sure does. Also, if you search hard enough any site will breach some
accessibility guideline for a deaf, blind, mentally handicapped or epileptic
user.

For example
[http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Flightgetsin.dreamwidth...](http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Flightgetsin.dreamwidth.org%2F312472.html)
shows some possible WebAIM accessibility guidelines breaches.

\- non-valid mark-up.

    
    
      4.1.1 Significant HTML/XHTML validation/parsing errors are avoided.
    

\- mixing of inline styling with external styling.

    
    
      4.1.2 Markup is used in a way that facilitates accessibility. 
      This includes following the HTML/XHTML specifications and 
      using forms, form labels, frame titles, etc. appropriately.
    

\- Using &nbsp;&nbsp; and <br> for visual spacing

    
    
      See 4.1.2
    

\- using tables for layout

    
    
      See 4.1.2
    

\- not providing a label, description or fieldset for the searchform

    
    
      1.1.1 Form inputs have associated text labels or, if 
      labels cannot be used, a descriptive title attribute.
    

And, not a WebAIM guideline, but still a good accessibility guideline:

\- Use a modern doctype (of the strict variant if not HTML5)

\- Don't use deprecated tags like <b> for article headings.

\- Provide an option to skip large lists.

If you start wielding all these guidelines and specifications like a D&D guide
you are sure to bump into hostility here and there. :)

~~~
vacri
I've spent about four years as a medical tech working with epilepsy in a
neurology lab. Sorry, but this just gets up my nose.

Please stop using 'flashing images' as a way to co-opt epileptics into defense
of the issue-of-the-day (that's the only thing I can think of as to why you
included it). Yes, some epileptics do respond to flashing images (~15% have
the kind required, less actually respond), but the parameters are pretty tight
for the bulk of them. The kind of flashing that can trigger a seizure is also
monumentally irritating to regular users, and generally hasn't been used since
the 90s.

I spent four years in a full-time job where I sat in the dark flashing lights
at epileptic and suspected epileptic patients, 4-6 times a day while recording
EEG, so I've got a reasonable subjective feel for the kind of flashing that
fires it off. I've spent a lot of time on the web, too, and the only thing
that even comes close in general use are the flashing-style 'you are the
999999th visitor' ads, and even then they usually subtend too small an arc of
the visual field.

For the record, the usual range for photosensitive epileptics to respond to
flashing images or lights is 12-20Hz, with a peak different for each patient
and with some rolloff at each end. Above 25Hz epileptic responses are
extremely rare - I've not personally seen one, but they do exist.

Yes, there are some epileptics that can have a seizure from a single camera
flash, and I've seen them, but they're reasonably rare amongst flash-
responsive epileptics (themselves an uncommon group). I've also heard of an
epileptic whose trigger was orange circles - not orange other shapes, or other
coloured circles ( _anything_ can be a trigger for a seizure). At what point
do you set the bar for rarity?

Sorry, but it gets up my nose - almost every time I've seen someone 'defend
epileptics' online, they don't actually know much about epilepsy, and seem
more to be using common mythology about epilepsy in order to co-opt the
illness to strengthen a point being made.

Of course, two other common forms of trigger, depending on the kind of
epilepsy, are stress and hyperventilation (strictly speaking, these are less
triggers and more threshold-to-event reducers). In this case, one could argue
that frustrating site design works against epileptics...

~~~
blauwbilgorgel
I included it to make the following point: Accessibility is more than catering
for the deaf or blind. It also includes color blindness, mental handicaps or
going by the standard:

[http://www.epilepsy.org.uk/info/photosensitive-
epilepsy/web-...](http://www.epilepsy.org.uk/info/photosensitive-epilepsy/web-
design)

[http://www.evengrounds.com/blog/assistive-technologies-
for-p...](http://www.evengrounds.com/blog/assistive-technologies-for-people-
with-epilepsy)

Which have the following guidelines (or myths?):

    
    
      - allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker
    
      - allow users to control blinking, avoid causing content to blink
    
      - allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages
    
      While people with epilepsy are browsing web sites, they 
      may encounter pages that have blinking texts and 
      animation that may trigger seizures. Sudden loud sounds 
      and repetitive audio in some web pages can also cause 
      epileptic seizures.
    

I do not know much about epilepsy, so I will believe your experience, but
believe me when I say I am not using it as a way to further a point. I believe
in above guidelines, regardless if they help for epilepsy, because in this
case they help other users with a mental handicap or ADHD and so remain good
guidelines. Or do you rather have we don't mention epilepsy all together when
making sites accessible and just call them common sense? It is easy to ignore
even a common sense guideline when there are so many different ones.

It seems you have an uphill battle to fight if mentioning epilepsy and
accessibility in one sentence gets up your nose. Like my quotes show, I am not
the fringe 'defend epileptics' spreader of myths here, this is part of the
accessibility topic.

~~~
vacri
It's fair to say that I overreacted a little, but I did admit it (via 'sorry,
gets up my nose'...)

What I was really reacting against was _if you search hard enough any site
will breach some accessibility guideline for a ... epileptic user_. The other
three, sure. But I just do not come across any kind of website offering a
service that violates these principles. You could throw a brick and find any
website that violates guidelines for people with blindness or mental illness.
You'd have to search for specific audio-based sites to find ones that
discriminate against deaf folks (I can't see how HN does so, for example, but
I may be missing something). But you'd have to go through a lot of service-
offering sites to find a serious one that caused problems for epileptics.

The only kind of violation of these principles I could think of is a bug
anyway - the issue where a mouseover changes the shape of a menu, moving it
out from under the pointer, reverting the menu back to original shape, repeat
ad infinitum.

Apart from that, I just don't see websites that cause problems. Served ads on
some low class websites, perhaps (999999!), but not the content that the
website itself is providing.

Solutions for epileptics to use poorly designed sites (if they were a real
problem like they are for the blind) are here anyway - [Esc] in pretty much
every browser cancels image animation. Flashblock kills flash dead, allowing
you to throttle it to your needs. If you're really, really susceptible to
simple movement as an epileptic (I've never heard of it, but it could happen,
I guess - see the orange circle guy), you can install noscript, which breaks a
lot of websites, but kills non-image animation dead. But if you're that
susceptible, you're extremely rare and the web probably shouldn't be designed
around your use case.

 _It seems you have an uphill battle to fight if mentioning epilepsy and
accessibility in one sentence gets up your nose._

Please read my comment again. It's not 'mentioning them in the same sentence',
that's a strawman.

------
mbateman
The optimal solution is to find or create some tool that lets you bypass these
options. This is a bit of a tangent, since that's really not what this post is
about, but it's worth mentioning.

If you're stuck in a wheelchair, it's good when people build ramps, but it's
far, far better to have a wheelchair that can go up stairs.

The former makes you dependent on the consideration of others, and sometimes
that consideration is really not a reasonable thing to ask or expect.

Even in this apparently simple case, as others have pointed out, it is not
easy to make everything accessible to screen readers. Also, what about older
websites and archives of scans and so forth? It's far better to focus on tools
that let one be as independent as possible.

I understand the annoyance. And I really hate it when people respond to
requests like this in a hostile manner. But at the end of the day it is better
if the person with exceptional needs can take on the responsibility for making
these transactions possible themselves. (Also I'm sure there's loads of money
to made developing these tools.)

~~~
brudgers
Ramps are not just intended for persons in wheelchairs. They improve access
for people with less serious mobility issues such as those with knee or hip
problems or elderly people who simply lack the upper body strength to
confidently support themselves using a handrail. Forcing such people into
stair climbing chairs is absurd...and of cost far more costly than a few ramps
or proper architectural design.

~~~
mbateman
On modern buildings of course you want to build a ramp. But the cost of adding
ramps to every already-built place accessible only by stairs is extremely
high. At any rate, that isn't to say that it shouldn't be paid, in many cases,
just that it's better (when possible and feasible) to develop technologies
that let the disabled deal with it themselves. There are buildings with stairs
and ramps or elevators. If you're disabled, it's good to be able to access
these buildings when you come across them.

Along the same lines, the purpose of accessible digital text isn't only to
help the blind, it's also to help the dyslexic and who knows who else, and
generally facilitate content extraction software of all types. It's good when
to do when it's feasible, but it's better to not have to rely on people doing
it.

------
colanderman
FWIW, the two places I've inquired about accessibility (just because these
things piss me off) have actually responded "we know it's a problem and we're
working on a fix," and have since been fixed. These were the City of Worcester
(Java menus) and my former employer, a public high school in Rhode Island
(entire paragraphs as JPEGs).

------
jsn
I'm sorry, but "I was disappointed" and "I wish you would take steps" probably
gets you grief. Asking usually doesn't. "Please" also helps (and its absence
doesn't).

I mean, come on. I'm sorry company X site was all but useless to you. It would
be nice if they made an extra effort to make it more accessible. But they
don't have to. They spend their own money, time and effort to build the site,
and they get to decide what their priorities are. Asking is okay, but so is
refusal.

~~~
selven
I agree. If I got an email with "lawyer pomposity" in it, I would likely
pretend I never got it and deliberately push back any accessibility plans out
of spite. You don't have to stick "please" in every sentence, but you have to
phrase things correctly. If it's phrased as a request, I would see an
opportunity to make people happy and gladly go along. If it's phrased as an
order, I would probably perceive it as an affront to my individual sovereignty
and would be motivated to fight back rather than capitulate.

------
hardy263
Aside from the bigger companies, I can see why some of the smaller ones
wouldn't want to do this, like the restaurants or his vet. Most of the time
they just hired someone to create the website, and be done with it. They don't
know how to implement the accessibility functionality themselves and hiring
someone to do it may cost several hundred to thousands of dollars.

I was interning in a government related web development job, and it took
several weeks to properly remake a site to conform to WCAG AA level standards.
Unfortunately, that was just for the templates. The dynamic content generated
by the CMS usually breaks the conformance. Making websites accessible is not
an easy task, and could cost a heavy amount for small businesses.

------
paolomaffei
"# Google (for the search engine) – Google Instant crashes Jaws, and the
current “solution” is to have a link to turn Instant off. Except it only works
for a single pageview at a time, ARRRRGH)."

How is this Google and not Jaws fault?

~~~
CJefferson
Most people would consider it Google's fault if their main page crashed
Internet Explorer, even though it would technically be IE's fault. The
internet is full of compromises.

Also in this case, even if Google Instant wasn't crashing Jaws, Google Instant
plays havoc with screen readers (yes, I have experience of this), and as the
article says, Google haven't provided a global off option, which would be
really useful.

All most screen-readers want is a really basic HTML interface, preferably no
AJAX at all. Even if it is slow and needs to re-load a lot, that is still
preferable to no access.

~~~
comex
What's wrong with [gear icon] -> "Search settings", select "Do not use Google
Instant"? I accidentally kept Google Instant off for months by selecting that
option.

~~~
masklinn
Try that one with VoiceOver and your eyes closed. Then, consider that you know
it exists.

------
ataggart
I find interesting the notion that web apps ought to be written to support
screen readers instead of screen readers being written to work with extant web
apps.

I also suspect any hostile response would be due in part to the concern that
someone is going to swing the big bat of government at them.

~~~
protomyth
If you are worried about the government getting involved, then for the love of
whatever you hold holy, do not be hostile. That response will be shown in
court to add damages and will be plastered on the news reports.

------
justinph
More people need to be like this guy and complain when sites are not
accessible. It might make my bosses and clients actually care when I want to
take time to make a site accessible. I can make noise about an issue, but
nothing brings it to the forefront like an angry letter from a user.

------
selven
Philosophical question - why do people with disabilities have the right to
higher priority than everyone else? Let's say you've calculated that there are
4000 blind people who might be interested in your website, but 11000 Spanish
speakers, 9000 Korean speakers and 7000 Portuguese speakers. If someone comes
to complain about accessibility for the blind, won't it be perfectly
reasonable to answer (in more polite terms) "no, we won't handle you, we're
going to do a Spanish translation first, then implement UTF-8 so we can do a
Korean translation, then do the Portuguese translation, and only then maybe
get to you"?

~~~
abecedarius
The Spanish speakers might be only a niche in the case of this one website,
but they don't face being a niche practically everywhere they turn. I'm not
going to weigh in on how that difference should affect how you deal with
accessibility, but it's a real one.

------
ZipCordManiac
I learned one thing from this post - Wow, blind people are pissed off.

In the past I've made a few websites where the owner required images
incorporated into the menu. I've spoken to owners about accessibility,
countless times, but more often then not I end up having to do some retarded
flash intro coupled with a graphic heavy menu. Owners don't care, they want it
to match their vision, and of course they don't want to pay extra to have
everything made accessible to the blind as they are probably some percentage
of a point of their customer base.

------
mathattack
Interesting. Is this a civil rights issue or a libertarian issue? The
libertarian in me says, "let the restaurants that don't comply lose their
business". But then I think, would I feel the same about businesses (and
government agencies!) that disallowed blacks/jews/gays/etc? I lean to the
latter, accepting that changing everyone will take time.

~~~
tzs
The problem with the libertarian view that businesses that purposefully
exclude some customers will lose business, and so eventually disappear from
the market, is that it only actually works that way if the businesses exclude
a large customer base, and there aren't compensating factors to make up for
the loss.

That's why economic forces didn't do much to open up things for blacks in the
south between the Civil War and the era of Federal civil rights law. If you
have a "No Coloreds" policy, and the store down the road does not then yes,
they'll get the black business you are giving up--but they are giving up to
you the business of people who do not want to shop around black people. The
latter is worth more to the bottom line than the former, so you'll actually
likely come out ahead economically with a "No Coloreds" sign hanging out in
front of your shop.

Then that business down the road decides they'd rather have half of the
whites-who-don't-want-to-shop-around-blacks business rather than all of the
black business, and out comes the "Whites Only" sign on their store. Yes, they
have less total customers after the change, but the white customers are
wealthier than the black customers and that makes up for the difference in
quantity.

Now it gets interesting. The mathematics of this kind of discrimination turn
out to be the same as the mathematics of a boycott of a small country by the
rest of the world. (I don't remember where I saw this--it might have been in
Posner's "Economic Analysis of Law"). Unless the small country is completely
self-sufficient, it loses badly. The net result is the discrimination _keeps_
the blacks poor, and so they don't as a group rise to the point where the
stores gain by integrating.

Humans in small groups of approximately equal status and means where everyone
knows everyone else simply do not behave the same as humans in very large
groups of widely varying status and means where people only know a small part
of the group. Libertarianism probably works great in the former case, but not
in the latter.

~~~
priggy
Do you think there is a similar explanation as to why Scotland's economic
fortunes haven't actually improved over the last 304 years despite being in a
union with England which promised and still promises that there is economic
benefit for Scotland to be in a union with England. Is it possible that they
are deliberately or through their own ignorance/incompetence be keeping
Scotland poor.

~~~
gaius
Sorry, but that's simply not true. From
<http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/43481/print> :

 _The Treasury data shows that public sector spending in England was 15% lower
than that of Scotland last year._

England bends over backwards to do things for the Scots, but they still can't
pull their weight.

~~~
priggy
Thats due to the barnett formula which was introduced in part to deal with
poverty north of the border. It was meant as a temporary measure and was soooo
effective that we still use it. Are you bending over backwards doing the wrong
things? Its not a question of simply giving money to Scotland - that doesn't
help Scotland. It keeps us poor just like keeping people on benefits isn't
actually good for them but helping them get into work and to create their own
money is good for them. Its the little and big decisions that may have nothing
to do with what money is spent where that keep Scotland where it is. Is the
barnett formula continuing so that unionists can say look we're trying to help
but your still not pulling your weight, whilst making bad decisions that
actually keep Scotland poor?

------
tlog333
I thought this was a really interesting article and I've been interested in
addressing the accessibility of startup sites recently. It's true that certain
accessibility modifications can be difficult/costly but the majority of them
are very easy to make. There are many "low hanging fruit" fixes that any site
should make. The improvements will assist with accessibility, usability, and
SEO. If anyone would like a quick review contact me on G+
<https://plus.google.com/111107665026656718495/posts>

------
codo
I've asked for similar help in the past here:
<http://ilnodisaarcodu.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/95/>

------
adgar
I find it antagonistic on the OP's part to call this response "hostile": “we
know it’s inaccessible, but we are not fixing it”. That's not hostile, it's
_honest_. What more could you ask for than honesty?

If they had responded “we know it’s inaccessible, but we are not fixing it,
because people with disabilities are a drain on society and should be put
down”, _that_ would be hostile.

Also: _“it would be too hard,” (universally incorrect)_ is just not true.
Unless his standard is "nothing is too hard for this noble cause."

~~~
Natsu
To be fair, a significant number of his complaints could have been solved by
turning JPEGs into text or adding labels to a few buttons. In several cases,
he gave them the exact fix required and they still refused or ignored him.

> What more could you ask for than honesty?

An attempt to fix the problem or raise the issue with someone that can.

~~~
ZipCordManiac
Why should they change their design for one person ? Maybe websites should
start having one version for people with sight and one all text version for
the blind. I think it's kind of dumb to make it so people can't use images
embedded with text. What about art or multimedia sites ?

~~~
Natsu
There's a lot more than one blind person out there, most of whom would simply
never do business with them without letting them know.

And it's not all images that are a problem, just those that are images of
large blocks of text, like the restaurant menu that was given as an example.
If it's a short bit of text like a logo, that's what ALT tags are for.

When there's the entire menu full of text as an image, that's just plain bad
design. It's worse for everyone and it won't even get indexed by search
engines. Text should be text. It's just easier that way.

------
nirvana
I read this article with a concern about an app I've worked on, where we
intended to go thru an add accessibility support in after the first release,
but it (and a bunch of other improvements) got dropped when priorities
changed. I was reading to see if I could judge how our app (which should be
mostly accessible) might have worked for this person... but they never
mentioned what their disability was in their sample letter, and so I had no
clue, and couldn't hazard a guess. (Except maybe that they are blind? Though I
don't have enough clues to be at all confident in that guess.)

I wonder if part of the non-response they got was because they never explained
what their disability was in their letters. I understand it really isn't some
pizza restaurant's business to need to know it, but if they left that off,
then it is hard for someone to understand their dificulty-- they might even
read the email too fast and not even realize there is a disability at all.
Thus it just sounds like someone who can't describe why the real problem is,
and is instead giving web development advice to a customer service rep who,
more likely than not, has no ability to even parse the email into actionable
or useful information for the developers simply because the context is dropped
by missing this key bit of information. (Even though the advice is useful to
someone who is a web developer, even without knowing the disability, the CSR
may not realize that.)

That said, I have gone thru a recent terrible experience attempting to deal
with a company who is bringing in $150million a month in revenue, and can't be
bothered to have CSRs actually read letters. Over the course of a dozen back
and for the responses, each form letter I got from them, was written by a
different person, and seemingly responded to a random word or two from my
previous message, where they clearly didn't' read the whole ticket or even
take a few minutes to actually comprehend what I was saying.

There's some really bad customer service out there, even from companies that
at least don't have lack of budget as an excuse.

~~~
jsavimbi
> but it (and a bunch of other improvements) got dropped when priorities
> changed

More CTO's with disabilities need to be hired.

~~~
protomyth
Or go ask the CTO to talk to the lawyers about what happened to Target. That
talk will help avoid a very uncomfortable talk later on with the CEO and HR.

~~~
jsavimbi
From my experience working in technology startups, I can say without a doubt
that the CEO is focused on getting a product, any product in any state of
progress, out the door and that HR thing you speak of is an office held by the
beneficiary of nepotism and maintained with loyalty who's sole job is to
complete the tasks assigned to them by the CEO, usually in a haphazardly
incompetent manner.

For example, I once worked at a firm where the HR person was my direct boss'
sister-in-law and was living with one of the [shithead] project managers I had
to deal with, who's sister-in-law was the receptionist/marketing genius. Do
you think any of those four people had any grease to make demands on whether
or not a product should include, or even be based upon conventions that would
assist those with disabilities if said inclusion were to set back the shipping
timetable? I think not.

tl;dr: CEO's focus on sales and revenue, HR is a rubber stamp/sick day
tracker, which can be outsourced.

~~~
protomyth
I guess my point was the CEO will be concerned by the multi-million $ lawsuit
and HR will be going over the CTO's severance package.

~~~
jsavimbi
I know what you point was, and it's clear to many that in a common sense
society that would be the case as you've correctly described it, however, my
experience has always been one of sales first, people last. Regardless of the
company's maturity.

------
ThaddeusQuay2
HN could use some attention to accessibility. In Chrome, I have to press CTRL+
four times to make the text easy to read, but then I get the horizontal scroll
bar, which makes reading tedious, especially on articles with many comments,
such as this one. I have the Readability plugin, but it doesn't work on HN.

