How people with disabilities use the web
w3.org
w3.org
An online bank does video verification. Being deaf, I couldn't complete the verification because I didn't understand the instructions. I asked someone for help, but the bank said, I need to do the verification alone.
What went wrong: The application didn't offer the possibility to send written instructions. The fallback of having support by someone else was declined. I offered to call a professional interpreter but that was declined, too.
Currently, if anything, it's more like websites first and foremost try to be "semantic web", that matters to no one other than Google. Accessibility comes as separate mark-up enhancements, an after thought.
The web should be for humans before it conforms to some standard that only benefits some big corp.
https://accessibility.blog.gov.uk/2016/09/02/dos-and-donts-o...
The woman who is deaf blind uses a refreshable braille keyboard. I looked up the cost and it's ~$3000USD. Even if some nonprofit organization pays for this, you still need parents and caregivers that know to take advantage of this.
I have no hardware experience, but I think I may take on the task of making life easier for some people with disabilities.
Quick ideas that popped to mind while watching the user stories: 1. Using AI to transcribe videos for people to have a standalone captions source other than their video player. 2. Several of the users use the tab key to fill out forms. Hell, Google search is nigh-impossible to use as keyboard only; Good luck with smaller sites. Some sort of open source project for handling tabbing logically would be awesome. Maybe a chrome extension that lets devs interface with it a la sponsorblock. 3. I'm fascinated by refreshable braille now. It's expensive because the technology seems pretty niche. I'm very uneducated on this topic but it feels like a cruder technology would also work, at the cost of size or throughput. There also don't seem to be any phones/portables with this capability.
I'd love to get into something like this, but don't know how. If you are in this sort of space, I'd love to talk.
This [1] was posted a few months ago and was an interesting read.
https://jacquesmattheij.com/refreshablebraille/BrailleDispla...
Truth is hardware is actually hard to get absolutely right. Software - now there’s tons of space on this. The problem is identifying the big pinch points. If anyone there wants to help us look at these priorities
- ows. An open wireless switch box https://github.com/AceCentre/OWS/tree/main (largely hardware) - echo. SwiftUI app. Aiming to provide speech to blind and physically impaired and with no voice. https://github.com/AceCentre/Echo - facecommander. A fork of googles gameface that was appallingly bug ridden. Use your face gestures to act as keyboard inputs https://github.com/AceCentre/FaceCommander - dasher. This needs a lot of c++ https://github.com/dasher-project/dasher-MIT/ its the fastest text entry system for head mouse , eyegaze users etc but woefully old
See also openassistive.org makers making change, openaac for other communities
Another word that automatically got removed from the title is why and this happened to me a lot. The system should, at least, notify you that the title has been edited. Fortunately, you can re-edit the title and bring back what was removed.
I will now beat the “grey in slightly darker grey” is not an acceptable color scheme drum again.
Now go to the blackboard and reverse binary trees until you've learned your lesson.
You can do a lot of customization with it, while overall my HN looks 90% the same as the default style (since i don't dislike it), i have done some customizations like making every other comment have a slightly darker background (to easily distinguish them when scrolling) and added some color to distinguish different parts of each post.
<https://pastebin.com/gLXiqKyd>
(That's what I'm driving now.)
I find HN ... mostly ... more worthwhile than not. The styling / UI/UX is abysmal.
That said, if you've the option to install a CSS style manager on your platform(s) of choice (Firefox desktop or Android, Chrome and Safari desktop), you have agency to change the situation and I've provided the styling to fix most of your major gripes (which are also mine).
And that said, I've said that which I care to.
Re: downstream comments, "@dang" is a no-op:
No, the trouble is the bad cases attract attention.
>By that standard, literally any feature is a bad thing.
That's specious reasoning, because that isn't the standard. The standard is signal over noise.
The script cut one word out of the title, which changed the context of the title enough that it spawned confusion and what is now the biggest subthread here. The bulk of conversation under TPA is about this issue, not the subject at hand.
When it works correctly, does it add to the quality of conversation more so than its failures detract? I don't think so. When it works it doesn't matter, and when it fails everything goes off the rails.
If you have to have this feature, just add a confirmation step. And maybe at least check that the canonical URL is different than the posted URL and confirm that, too. Yes it means added complexity, but so did the features themselves. Minimalism doesn't mean you have to cut your nose off to spite your face.