Glittering fragments in chaotic, unstable orbit. A sharp friend with a fungal halo. 🔞

I do what I am: 🪞🕸️🗝️🪡🔪🍄🎭🌙🩸


aetataureate
@aetataureate
Sorry! This post has been deleted by its original author.

arachnixe
@arachnixe

The accessibility request from last year languishes in the planning phase while the sexy audio post feature goes from request to implemented and rolled out in a month.

And this is just my biggest accessibility issue with the site. It's also one that's extremely small scope compared to some others neglected in the support forum. (Not to diminish the need for the other accessibility features either, which should be implemented even if they require more effort.) What does it take to get some of this feature energy directed toward improved accessibility?

Like, I get that they're a small team. It's this prioritization that makes me sad. To use the wheelchair ramp metaphor, it's seeing all your friends recommending their cool leftist co-op grocery. But the Walmart has a wheelchair ramp while the co-op has stairs. Meanwhile, your friends are implying that there's something wrong with the moral compass of anyone shopping at the Walmart for any reason...or, when you try to bring it up, responding with incredulous anger. "What do you mean this place feels hostile to your needs? They support trans people!"


Malusdraco
@Malusdraco

The only reason I can see that actual dark mode is held up is because of user css styling. I could also easily imagine that taking away user css being a tricky business given how complex some of these posts get. Ultimately you don’t want to strip away user CSS because it’s a feature used by a lot of different people for different reasons.

A little disappointed we haven’t gotten a response from the devs on this post as to why that particular accessibility feature isn’t implemented yet…


arachnixe
@arachnixe

I'm sorry, but this site should not prioritize the fun of the "CSS Crimes" subset of users over the accessibility needs of disabled users. It truly doesn't matter if dark mode ruins custom inline CSS, and I'm sure most folks who do custom CSS would agree that it's on the user writing the custom CSS to handle those edge cases, not the site.

You don't even have to "take away" user CSS! This just means user CSS needs to be a bit more careful about color choices, and most CSS Crimes work just fine already in the unofficial dark modes provided by browser extensions.

But even for the vanishingly small minority of posts that would be ruined by a dark mode, people like me—who need dark mode for accessibility reasons—can put up with 1% or fewer "fancy" posts becoming less legible if it means the site becomes 99% more usable. Like I said in the comments of the feature request, I'd rather have a good enough solution today than wait for a 100% solution a year from now.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @aetataureate's post:

Yeah...

More generally, I have come to hate the phrase "minimum viable product," because in web development that inevitably means a website that isn't viable for a bunch of disabled people. None of the major frameworks, companies, boot camps, or degrees focus on accessibility, so it becomes something "extra" to make web sites actually useable for a sizable portion of the population.

in reply to @arachnixe's post:

I’m just speculating about why it’s held up- not saying it should be that way. It makes sense as something that would be tricky to fix from a technical perspective. It doesn’t excuse that changing the color/style of user posts didn’t roll out with the dark mode already implemented