Blueprint for a more accessible internet
qz.comThe best line is at the end:
*> “Many of us are temporarily able bodied and will face exclusion as we age. When we design for inclusion, we’re designing for our future selves.”
Accessibility is like security, usually neglected and left as an afterthought unless one is impacted by it. Actually it’s worse than how security is treated because the consequences of not being accessible aren’t as wide or as bad as a security incident (even in jurisdictions where accessibility has more value).
What would make it easier for developers to include accessibility is better built-in tooling, similar to the MS Word example cited in this article. There are browser extensions that can help test for and report accessibility issues (and remedies), but it’d be better if these are built-in in the toolset used.
Of course the first thing that happens when you open qz.com is a banner ad that pushes the content past the fold by having css set to "width: 100%; height: 100%"
Of course, the author has no control of this and I'll keep reading.
You might like umatrix and stylus. The make the Web bearable.
Serious question: who is paying me as a freelancer or small business owner to work on mobile accessibility? It's not the client.
The amount of work and hours put into developing and maintaining (nevermind learning from scratch) is hugely exceeded by the 10-15% potential increase in revenue, which I'm dubious about to begin with. Is the 200 hours/year it would take to maintain at $100/hr worth $20,000 in incremental revenue? I just don't seethat happening.
I don't disagree with most of the article, but the expectation that "you should do this without considering opportunity cost" makes the entire argument moot.
As a professional, there should be many decisions your client hires you to make for them. Unless there is specific regulation, competitors can undercut you by taking shortcuts in any number of areas. You can choose to try to win a race to the bottom, or work on establishing your reputation as premium quality developer.
I use Firefox, and I rarely see a site that doesn't work because I'm not using Chrome. Firefox market share is somewhere around 5% now, and most people will use another browser if they need to for their bank or other important site.
If a business owner gets a call from a Firefox user who can't access their site, it's the developer's fault. Treating the requirements of an estimated 15% who need a small number of aids as though it is a decadent extra seems like a problem of professional standards.