Hacker News Reader

> screen reader users was left with a sub-optimal experience ... but hey they get to use the same URL as everyone else so there is nothing for them to complain about.

Sure, if the website is sub-optimal, the users are free to complain about it (and file a lawsuit, depending on the country and laws). From my experience, UX and Accessibility go hand in hand. So if your website is sub-optimal for screen reader users, I can almost guarantee it will be sub-optimal for other people as well.

In theory, this is a false dilemma - it's not either a highly optimal version for screen reader users vs. a sub-optimal experience with the default version. The third option is to "simply" make the default version accessible (which indeed may mean _a lot_ of work = money, especially for legacy projects).

It's like creating a separate version of your website just for mobile devices. This pattern was used a lot in the past, but not that much anymore. If you build your website with mobile and accessibility in mind (mobile-first, a11y-first), you get an overall better experience.

> We worked together with Jaws to find a way to determine if the user was using a screen reader.

This is basically the opposite of what I just wrote. There was a big uproar regarding the new Apple feature [0] for doing exactly that.

> Dont know if things has changed since.

My personal anectode: I was part of a complete re-write of a big airline website and we followed the mobile- and a11y-first approach with much success. I think the major part of our success was having _everyone_ on board from day one: designers, developers, testers, product managers and customer had all been working with accessibility in mind.

[0] https://axesslab.com/digital-apartheid/

> The law clearly states that all citizen must have same access to government facilities and that was determined to mean "the same entrance" and "same facilities within the building".

That seems insane to me. You're telling me government buildings don't have any stairs whatsoever?

The developers of JAWS may have added the code needed to detect it, but that still leaves several screen readers without such an implementation (thankfully because this is a terrible idea).

If you own an iPhone/iPad, much has changed. These devices include the best features for accessibility.

It is possible to make a website accessible using existing tools and guidelines but you can make a much better experience if you build a dedicated edition of your website to use by screen readers.

This would be the equivalent of publishing 2 versions of your iPhone app. One highly optimized for blind people and another version for everyone else.

Although the iPhone has great accessibility an separate optimized version of your app would provide an even better user experience but that we were not allowed to do.

The idea for the text only edition was an idea that was formed by a group of blind people and was the solution they said was the optimal solution for them

Your approach is an antipattern. It works great for five minutes after you launch. Then you need to maintain multiple versions of the site. And inevitably the two versions start to diverge. And guess which version will get short shrift? There's even a term for this. "Separate but equal". Said sarcastically. No offense, but I recommend you research this a bit more.

How can you optimize for Safari support?

If you have use of your fingers?

Didn’t Stephen Hawking use Windows because it had the best accessibility?