Comment by spijdar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by spijdar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> until this becomes a legal requirement no matter what, it will keep being ignored by the large community of developers.

"no matter what"? One of the more popular uses for these immediate-mode UI toolkits is to create interfaces for video games, either debug UIs or the menus painted over the game's main scene/content. I don't think people who need a screen reader are going to be playing a twitch-reaction shooter game.

I agree that these shouldn't be used for general use applications, but I strongly disagree with the sentiment that somehow all programs should be forced to work with screen readers. Some domains and applications are primarily visual and don't really translate well to textual interaction. I think these kinds of toolkits work best with those kinds of applications.

You shouldn't use these to write the next Discord or Slack or Firefox or LibreOffice etc. -- but I don't see a problem with making a debug UI or a menu for an action video game with an immediate mode toolkit.

You would be surprised at what people do with screen readers, but yes, that probably won’t work for first person shooters.

Realistically, however, even if this is only/mostly used for games (if so, why doesn’t https://github.com/Immediate-Mode-UI/Nuklear even mention the word game?), many, if not most, of them probably will be turn-based, because it’s much easier to write such games.

Also, accessibility doesn’t imply screen reader. It also includes high-contrast, larger fonts, tabbing through controls (e.g. to support users with Parkinson or motor disabilities), etc. Nowadays, a GUI library should pick up settings for those from the OS.

I would think the same thing, but playing video games blindfolded is a thing. Look up ponktus Super Metroid 100% blindfolded and zallard1/sinister1 2p1c blindfolded Punchout for examples.

If it's possible for someone to beat these games blindfolded (at a competitive pace, no less!), then it's possible for a blind person to beat it too.

The old consoles didn't have screen readers, but watching zallard1 play Wii Punchout blindfolded, I can see where they would help. Amazing fights, yet painful to watch when using the menu system.

That’s up to the person or company creating the video game to decide though. It can’t be a legal requirement any more than you could require painters to also produce a 3D model of their work so the visually impaired can enjoy it too.

This seems a bit short sighted. Should we not require accessible entrances to shops, banks, etc in law because it should be up to the people who own the building to decide if it's worth the massive expense of making the building accessible for only a few customers?

A videogame is (almost always) an unnecessary, discretionary waste of time for everyone who uses it. A storefront probably serves a purpose; a bank obviously serves a purpose. It might not be that easy to draw the line but it's obvious that "game" is on one side and "bank" the other.

It absolutely can be a legal requirement, though I am not arguing that it should be one. I was specifically addressing the comment "I don't think people who need a screen reader are going to be playing a twitch-reaction shooter game." Apologies for being unclear.

The people typically playing the games blindfolded had first beaten them countless times with normal sight. You typically will see this on games where core gameplay elements are not influenced by any significant randomness.

Outside of that lack of randomness, I doubt there are any purposeful or even accidental affordances towards blind players in those games.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com