Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmc | Hacker News Reader

Those 2 platforms cover a large percentage of the mobile devices.

Certainly they do, but they don't cover all of them or the people who don't own mobile devices. Again, this is an accessibility issue.

On an iPhone a well built app will be far better than a webpage from an accessibility point of view.

Accessibility, by definition, is about accommodating as many users as possible be they impaired or otherwise.

No one owes you an app. If it doesn't exist and you think there is a need then do the entrepreneurial thing and create one.

Lets start with something simple here: I'm not contending in any way that anyone owes me anything. I'm asking whether it wouldn't be better to spend the money on building a simple web application instead of focusing on these two platforms.

Since you're here and you've taken the time to write such a thoughtful reply I'll address it directly. If I had donated money to the kickstarter campaign, they would indeed "owe me" an app for all senses of "owe" that matter for conversation about the apps in question. Then, if I or someone I cared about wasn't an owner of an Android or iOS device, it's reasonable to wonder why the campaigners can't achieve the same result using a technology that works for a significantly larger market of devices (including desktops).

The Kickstarter was specifically for an Android app.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/escapeapps/opening-this-...

Let's continue with simple thoughts, shall we. Presumably before donating to the campaign you would have determined that it met your requirements. If your requirements included a minimum level of device coverage then you would have withheld your support.

If you did not donate to the campaign then why should the developer be criticized for not meeting your requirements? They don't owe you anything. Including meeting your expectations.

Added: If they left a need on the table then take it and run with it.

Usability is also an accessibility concern. If you make something that is technically accessible to anyone, but difficult to use (because mobile web is harder for people), I'd argue you are cutting out more people than you are by limiting to Android and iOS. And this application is explicitly mobile anyway, because you can drive along and have it show you what's what, rather than memorizing the raw info ahead of time. That is, you can at least make the case that creating a great experience for a large majority of people will reach more net users than a poor to mediocre experience in a platform-agnostic way.

Are you suggesting a project like this isn't worthwhile unless it cater to "all" mobile devices as well as "people who don't own mobile devices?" This is the perfect as the enemy of the good in spades.

Honestly tho, by your standard, 100% of websites and apps are problematically inaccessible, because they don't cater to people with no net access & no phone. Demanding 100% coverage before a tool can be praised is silly.

Incidentally, is there any reason you're not filling in the gap here with... what, a mobile site & printed handbills, distributed throughout the city on a regular basis (if even that would meet your desire for accessibility)? :)

Why is it so hard to imagine building this with web technologies. The app is simple enough and then many more platforms would be supported by default

My argument is that there simply isn't any reason to make this a native app and by doing so they are limiting their reach.

Well, then do it. This is HN, creating software to fulfill a need is what (almost) everyone here does / has done. Hence, your argument is not carrying much weight and getting so much pushback. The crowd here expects a "Show HN", more than a "Waanh HN". ;-)

I hear your argument & it's valid but it's important to not wholly discount image & marketing when choosing a solution, as they also affect how widely used a product is, for better or worse. Apps are "cooler," some people will be more inclined to use it as an app. Again, this isn't a really meaningful reason but it's a real factor and bears consideration. I'm not sure if bookmarking to homescreen is a common workflow for many people.

My point is that there's a trade off (I tend to suspect people would use a mobile site less; you have to find it each time etc.) and if you determine that product X would be less accessible, but used by more people, if you implement it using technology Y, it's not unreasonable to accept that compromise.

Lest I come of as a grumpy gus that doesn't care about accessibility, I'll link to this PR https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc/pull/37 which hopefully illustrates that I do care about accessibility, I just recognize that there are other factors when choosing a solution as well and not all will be perfectly accessible, for better or worse.

You're right. They should make a WP, Meego, Sailfish, Jolla, Tizen, WebOS, Windows, and Mac OS app. And some more too. It's an accessibility issue.

And while we're at it, how come libraries have accessibility as a goal, but many rural areas don't have easy access to a library? We should build many more libraries so that every home in America, no matter how isolated, has easy access. It's an accessibility issue.

~~~

Sometimes, the ROI is just too small. If someone wants an app for their platform, they can go ahead and make it, but access to Malibu beaches isn't a human right so essential that we must take extraordinary measures to ensure it.

This is silly. Built with web technologies you'd get most of those for free. This isn't facebook, the app is simple enough that the web is viable platform for delivery.

Don't forget to translate it into the ~ 6,000 known human lanauges as well. You'll have to include audio and good speech-to-text so people who can't read can use it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com