There isn't one perfect way to design things since our needs are different. A relative of mine has failing eyesight and requires high contrast - while I am quite sensitive to bright lights and need to dim my screens beyond what most people find workable.
The best lesson in accessibility to learn is that our societal needs are complex and the various standards exist for good reason. If you want to create a complex and particular design using CSS that is fine but keep the tagging underlying that design compatible with screen-readers and allow easy overriding of styling.
One of the most frustrating things for accessibility is advertising since it specifically goes to lengths to use obfuscated class names (to avoid ad-blocks) and bright colors (often via images/videos that contain embedded text). At some point I really do hope we realize just how expensive advertising is and how many externalized costs it forces on us all.
That curb cut example is a great example of the pattern.
Improvements aimed at a specific accessibility need often end up benefiting more people than expected.
While thinking about this, I realized that accessibility often acts like a kind of stress test for design assumptions. If something only works under ideal conditions, accessibility issues tend to surface those weaknesses very quickly. (I wish I'd known that when I was a tester!)
Accessibility issues are always usability issues if you're not a jerk who believes it's okay to not consider usability for about a quarter of the population.
Having said that, yes, tending to the needs of disabled people absolutely does help identify design shortcomings and making software better for disabled people often benefits far more users than than the targeted group. This is called the "curb cut effect" or simply "curb cuts" in the industry because like sidewalk curb cuts made for wheel chairs, the improvement was actually a win for everyone from jogger to parents with strollers, to rolling luggage, delivery people with hand trucks, etc. etc. When we make things better for one group, often many groups benefit so designing with everyone in mind, and not just people like you, is always worthwhile.
interesting related aside: I'm comparing HTML/hypermedia w/MCP as an agentic protocol and adding accessibility information made using HTML-based APIs much easier some agents
That’s a good point. Spelling, grammar, and punctuation can all affect readability. A lot of modern design trends assume perfect reading conditions and typical visual processing.
When those assumptions break, accessibility issues start showing up very quickly.
I've been wondering how all the people who've decided not using capital letters between sentences is cool, how they think about accessibility. Do they recognize (1) it disadvantages people with reading / sight disabilities (2) it makes it hard for all humans to parse the boundaries of sentences, ergo thoughts?
You can find excellent examples of english written before capital letters (or even spaces) were standard and they tend to be significantly harder to parse because we're not used to parsing them. Familiarity is part of the problem but I also think that more visual clues allows for faster parsing and comprehension overall.
Different languages and cultures. When you spend a lifetime building reading clues, throwing them out the window makes it harder for people. The languages you mention also have delineation methods that involve more than simple punctuation marks.
There isn't one perfect way to design things since our needs are different. A relative of mine has failing eyesight and requires high contrast - while I am quite sensitive to bright lights and need to dim my screens beyond what most people find workable.
The best lesson in accessibility to learn is that our societal needs are complex and the various standards exist for good reason. If you want to create a complex and particular design using CSS that is fine but keep the tagging underlying that design compatible with screen-readers and allow easy overriding of styling.
One of the most frustrating things for accessibility is advertising since it specifically goes to lengths to use obfuscated class names (to avoid ad-blocks) and bright colors (often via images/videos that contain embedded text). At some point I really do hope we realize just how expensive advertising is and how many externalized costs it forces on us all.
That curb cut example is a great example of the pattern. Improvements aimed at a specific accessibility need often end up benefiting more people than expected.
While thinking about this, I realized that accessibility often acts like a kind of stress test for design assumptions. If something only works under ideal conditions, accessibility issues tend to surface those weaknesses very quickly. (I wish I'd known that when I was a tester!)
Accessibility issues are always usability issues if you're not a jerk who believes it's okay to not consider usability for about a quarter of the population.
Having said that, yes, tending to the needs of disabled people absolutely does help identify design shortcomings and making software better for disabled people often benefits far more users than than the targeted group. This is called the "curb cut effect" or simply "curb cuts" in the industry because like sidewalk curb cuts made for wheel chairs, the improvement was actually a win for everyone from jogger to parents with strollers, to rolling luggage, delivery people with hand trucks, etc. etc. When we make things better for one group, often many groups benefit so designing with everyone in mind, and not just people like you, is always worthwhile.
interesting related aside: I'm comparing HTML/hypermedia w/MCP as an agentic protocol and adding accessibility information made using HTML-based APIs much easier some agents
Interesting point.
One thing HTML has going for it is that accessibility info (semantics, ARIA roles, structure, etc.) is embedded.
Are you finding that agents can make use of that directly, or are you adding more accessibility metadata on top?
This entire thread is ai slop.
That’s a good point. Spelling, grammar, and punctuation can all affect readability. A lot of modern design trends assume perfect reading conditions and typical visual processing.
When those assumptions break, accessibility issues start showing up very quickly.
I've been wondering how all the people who've decided not using capital letters between sentences is cool, how they think about accessibility. Do they recognize (1) it disadvantages people with reading / sight disabilities (2) it makes it hard for all humans to parse the boundaries of sentences, ergo thoughts?
What?
Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Arabic language systems don't use capital letters. They manage to parse the boundaries of sentences and thoughts just fine.
You can find excellent examples of english written before capital letters (or even spaces) were standard and they tend to be significantly harder to parse because we're not used to parsing them. Familiarity is part of the problem but I also think that more visual clues allows for faster parsing and comprehension overall.
Different languages and cultures. When you spend a lifetime building reading clues, throwing them out the window makes it harder for people. The languages you mention also have delineation methods that involve more than simple punctuation marks.
[dead]