Hacker News Reader

Comment by fsloth | Hacker News Reader

Um, you can't make paintings accessible to blind people nor can you make downhill skiing accessible for four-limb paraplegigs.

There is a public domain within which most disabilities should be catered for but you can't expect that every non-private thing is made public so it's usable by all.

Just because something is 'in the web' doesn't mean it's a public service, access to which is a basic right.

It's good to be reminded to take into account disabilities, of course, since those are not obvious to people who do not have disabled people nearby.

View on HN

This is not art or sport, it is a technical demonstration of an interesting way to build web applications by compiling java to javascript. Calling out that this method has accessibility issues seems very on-point for a show hn post. The TeaVM people may not have thought of this, but should consider it as it will eventually become a barrier to adoption of their tech. For example, anyone who sells software to enterprise companies that has customer facing UIs (and potentially employee facing UIs) knows that the interfaces must meet certain web accessibility standards because the risk to the enterprise of facing ADA lawsuits is high.

Thanks for your comment! I had been wondering where this 'sudden' push toward web accessibility came from: good 'ol US litigiousness!

Of course it's a good thing to be mindful of from a humanist perspective, but if fear of lawsuit is driving the change, it's not a very "love thy neighbour" kind of thing, but more of a fascist dictation, no? Especially if you are not in the US.

I'll be doubling down on my efforts to ensure better compliance nevertheless.

I presume the web standards you mention are part of some US legislation, yes? :S The web is becoming a crazy place, it seems that every country is writing laws that affects the whole web... and we as developers are assumed to know them all, from UI requirements (US) to security implications (Australia), to privacy concerns (GRPR)...

> I presume the web standards you mention are part of some US legislation, yes?

Lots of European companies have similar requirements if they want to sell to the public sector (which is probably even bigger as a market over here, I would expect).

Accessibility is not a modern fashion. The concerned standard is WCAG 2.0.

Thanks for that. I simply hadn't ever encountered it, and stand highly corrected on my ignorance! It's actually been around forever [0]:

> The WCAG 1.0 was published and became a W3C recommendation on 5 May 1999. They have since been superseded by WCAG 2.0.

That said, the current is 2.1:

> WCAG 2.1 became a W3C Recommendation on 5 June 2018

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Content_Accessibility_Guid...

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

3 November 2008, though it had been available long before in as draft going back to 25 January 2001.

A person with a disability shouldn't be denied any given job because an application is inaccessible even though the job function itself ought to be accessible (e.g., for a blind person, isn't inherently visual). It follows that every line of business application that can be accessible must be accessible. This is why I call this out whenever I learn about an inaccessible UI toolkit. I'm afraid that an inaccessible app will lead to someone being unable to get a job they want, or losing the one they have.

How can a blind person ever be a report designer? The nature of the task is inherently visual. No matter how much accessibility you add to PowerPoint a blind user isn't going to be able to chose the perfect font or position a chart in a meaningful way.

PowerPoint is a pretty poor example. A blind person may not be able to build a PowerPoint template, but I think they should be able to build a PowerPoint presentation using a supplied template.

Exactly. Furthermore, my primary concern is not the app, but the toolkit, since that's what the Show HN i really about IMO.

Some Powerpoints make me wish I was blind.

I don't have a problem with companies explicitly choosing not to make the apps accessible, unless I'm forced to use them, or they were accessible and it's hard to switch now. I have a problem with UI toolkit developers dismissing accessibility entirely and then companies using those "cool things" to build apps. If you build an inaccessible web app and you want to add a11y later on, you reasonably can. It might be hard, but it's usually doable. If you use a toolkit like this though, you're completely, hopelessly screwed. You can't do anything without rewriting half of the toolkit to support an alternative DOM representation, which will probably affect your performance. I've never seen that done. Either the companies just give up or moan about the shitload of money they've wasted and rebuild the app using normal web components, or build an alternative. Sometimes the law just forces them to, and the toolkit forces them not to. Imagine the sums of money you can waste on this.

But this is replacing something with good a11y guidelines, with poorer support. That’s worth warning about, and nothing at all like trying to make downhill skiing for paraplegics.

Imagine using this for a new B2B app and then losing sales because prospective customers have ADA requirements or blind employees who use other web apps just fine. It’s extra engineering work sure, but it’s hardly a crazy ask, and it’s the right thing to do for large to medium size companies who can afford it IMO.

Working on an application now with deep a11y requirements. The main function of the application can't be done without sight (validating scanned documents). It's just a little frustrating.

There are also sighted keyboard/switch users, a11y is a lot more than just blind users. https://a11yproject.com/posts/myth-accessibility-is-blind-pe...

Implementing good a11y apis allows the variety of vendors to make assistive technology that can navigate your page for all sorts of user categories.

I completely understand that... it's simply that some of the hard requirements only make sense for those without sight, but you cannot effectively use the app without at least some sight. (there's decent zoom and contrast support)

"can't" is a pretty strong term. Up until recently, people would have said that you can't make Olympic sprinting accessible to someone with no feet, but it turns out in fact you can, with sufficient application of technology.

So the real question is always whether the technology to make something accessible exists and whether it can be deployed reasonably in the particular instance involved.

They didn't change the race though, they changed the person running it by giving them pseudo-feet. To continue your analogy, in order for a bling person to use this we just need to give them pseudo-eyes.

That's a worthwhile goal in itself, sure. But I think you're reading too much into what I said. I never claimed the two situations were identical or analogous, just that "can't" is something that needs to be periodically re-evaluated.

But if you do want to press on with sprinting events, note that they have been using start signals with both an audible and a visible component for a while, to accommodate people who may not be able to perceive one or the other. Back until we had electronically-triggered lights, you "couldn't" have a deaf competitor compete, modulo smoke from the starting gun. Now you can.

> with sufficient application of technology.

Plus years of stupendously painful physical therapy and Herculean will.

Yes, that too. I did not mean to downplay that part at all!

If you want to sell software or services to the government you need to be 508 compliant

https://www.section508.gov/sell

> nor can you make downhill skiing accessible for four-limb paraplegics

BS, we can and already have. here's a paraplegic person dropping in on one of the steepest in-bounds runs in the US.

https://youtu.be/MAF08-ko3aw

quit being so dismissive.

He has use of his arms

Nitpicking here, but many quadriplegics still have some use of their arms. Depending on the level of SCI and completeness they might not be able to use their pinkies or wrists but still use their arms for transfers or picking things up.

There are actually accomplished quadriplegic pool players. They use a bridge and learn a grip that works. Disabled people are extremely adaptable out of necessity.

Cool! My intent was not to be dismissive.

I was not implying people with disabilities should stop doing things, rather, that it shouldn't stop a non-disabled person to do a thing just because a disabled person can't do the same thing.

Your not wrong factually but the beauty of web is the fact that it can work for a blind person on the other side of the world or a modern person right next to you.

> Just because something is 'in the web' doesn't mean it's a public service, access to which is a basic right.

This is not correct and may result in very costly class action lawsuits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com