Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You
-
https://sonniesedge.co.uk/talks/dear-developer
Especially good is the section on Lessons in Humanity. Here are the bulletpoints:
Lesson 0: Empathy is a learned skill
Lesson 1: Not everyone is alike
Lesson 2: Not everyone is rich
Lesson 3: Not everyone is well-connected
Lesson 4: Not everyone is able-bodied, or able-mindedNote that the coddled Silicon Valley wussy-developers, sadly the idiots who write like 90% of all websites, violate all these rules regularly.
-
@blakeyrat Huh, interesting.
I'm not going to lie: I regularly use static site generators for things like ecommerce. Sometimes I use a dynamic site framework, plus Knockout. But only when I actually need a webapp.
Your brand has to tell your story, but it does seem like "everybody" has the same story to tell (and makes the same mistakes doing it).
-
Another article that pretends that the victory of javascript heavy tech like SPA-s is purely due to "coolness factor", completely ignoring economic side of the equation.
Bottom line, if additional revenue generated by supporting Africans, poor people, the disabled and tech luddites is less than the cost of making progressively enhancing super optimized websites, most companies will just put together a spa and a backend api, that can then be reused for their mobile app. Period.
-
@cartman82 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Bottom line, if additional revenue generated by supporting Africans, poor people, the disabled and tech luddites is less than the cost of making progressively enhancing super optimized websites, most companies will just put together a spa and a backend api, that can then be reused for their mobile app.
How would they know?
Not to mention you glossed over the author's point about the rich white people who still had to pay extra fees because airline reservation apps didn't work over the flaky wifi in airports. Which you'd think would be one environment they'd test in. So it's an issue even if you're a complete dick who only cares about rich white people.
-
@cartman82 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Another article that pretends that the victory of javascript heavy tech like SPA-s is purely due to "coolness factor", completely ignoring economic side of the equation.
Bottom line, if additional revenue generated by supporting Africans, poor people, the disabled and tech luddites is less than the cost of making progressively enhancing super optimized websites, most companies will just put together a spa and a backend api, that can then be reused for their mobile app. Period.
"My website only supports sub-group X because that's the only people who use the site."
Maybe only X uses the site because they're the only ones who CAN use it.
"No, that can't be it. I must be because there's no market for non-X."
-
If you’ve ever wanted to see an old lady’s personal anger and rants about the modern web industry turned into a talk, you’ve come to the right place.
But it's text.
I’m here to talk to you about the single biggest invention in human history.
Either you start talking about money, or you're full of shit.
Some others, perhaps less drunk on beer and easily accessible literature, might say that it’s the Internet
They're obviously drunk on something much more potent.
But no, the this talk is about the invention of the World Wide Web.
Apparently, the invention of basic use of internet is bigger than invention of internet itself.
Despite what Tim Berners-Lee claims, the Web wasn’t a single invention 1. Yes, we know that one man says that he invented it (grudging thanks to Tim), but he did so on the back of a thousand other technologies
Dozens at best. Maybe even a single dozen.
The Web is incredible. It’s incredible because it’s stupid. It’s a collection of very stupid, or more accurately, very simple, technologies, all chained together to make something much greater.
Good conclusion, bad premises. Web isn't made of simple technologies - it's made of incredibly overcomplicated, overengineered technologies that should never be made. It only looks simole because you don't know shit about them.
...
I wanted to do entire article but it turned out to be less entertaining than I thought. I should have known better than to read articles posted by Blakey.
-
@gąska I like to read articles where headings break up three to five paragraph chunks. This author apparently misread and used them to break up three to five sentence chunks.
-
@gąska said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
But it's text.
@pie_flavor said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
I like to read articles where headings break up three to five paragraph chunks.
It's a transcribed talk, dumbshits.
-
@blakeyrat Mentioned, AFAICT, literally nowhere. Why not just link the talk video? Then I can listen to it as fast as I could be reading it while doing something else.
-
Continuing:
Telegraphs
I must admit, there is nothing wrong with that entire section.
you were suddenly able to talk to people thousands of kilometers away.
Soon after that we would realise that everyone was miserable and that no one actually wanted to talk to each other.
I'm not sure the author realizes there's more people in the world than just her and her immediate family.
Soon after telephones become commonplace we saw the rise of computers. Almost straight away people thought about getting them to talk to each other instead of humans having to do the boring talking.
I know it's supposed to be comedy (a strong emphasis on "supposed"), but I'm not sure the author knows that main goal of computers is to communicate with humans, not just other computers.
This led to the invention of the modem (...) Computers could now talk to each other!
When a modem was invented, computers were talking to each other for quite a long time already.
The TCP/IP specification, incidentally, gave us Postel’s Law, possibly one of the most beautiful Laws ever
The author must have never studied math above preschool level.
Once non-technical people started using the Internet they asked the pertinent question of “what the actual fuck are all these numbers and dots about?”.
In response some clever boffin came up with the Domain Name System, while another figured out Email Addresses.
Email addresses were invented together with emails themselves. I'm pretty sure DNS was invented before internet.
These started to consolidate into Uniform Resource Identifiers
Email addresses aren't and never have been URIs.
Finally, in this simplified chain of inventions, we reach HTML. “Vague, but exciting” as Tim Berners-Lee’s supervisor said, completely being chill about one of the greatest ever inventions, and the thing that provides us all with work as Web Developers.
I wonder if the author realizes that if HTML was never invented, something else with equivalent functionality would inevitably appear in its place.
So why do I mention all these things? Well, I really want to get the point across that the web is strong. Enormously, stupidly, strong.
Also fragile. Enormously, stupidly fragile.
We rarely stop to think about how amazing this is! It’s strong because of these simple, dumb technologies that it is built upon.
No, it's strong IN SPITE OF them. It's strong thanks to millions of developers working for decades to overcome the challenges posed by these technologies and their absolutely insane design choices.
Especially HTML. It is strong because it is such a simple, declarative language.
Up until you try to make an actual webpage with actual functionality.
Technically, HTML is a domain-specific markup language that requests an outcome, and doesn’t care how that is accomplished. This is in stark contrast to imperative languages, which explictly details what a program should do at every moment of its state.
Technically, C++ program only requests an outcome, and doesn’t care how that is accomplished. See: ISO/IEC 14882:2017 section 4.6.1.
It is this flirty declarative nature makes HTML so incredibly robust. Just look at this video. It shows me pulling chunks out of the Amazon homepage as I browse it, while the page continues to run.
Let’s just stop and think about that, because we take it for granted. I’m pulling chunks of code out of a running computer application, AND IT IS STILL WORKING.
Jut how… INCREDIBLE is that?
No more incredible than cutting out part of painting and still seeing the rest. Also, you're deleting DOM, not HTML.
Can you imagine pulling random chunks of code out of the memory of your iPhone or Windows laptop, and still expecting it to work? Of course not! But with HTML, it’s a given.
Because HTML is interactive bitmap, not executable code. Try pulling random chunks of JavaScript that actually contains the webpage logic and see how that goes!
It is this robustness of HTML that has made the WWW so incredibly durable. It’s why it dominates the planet.
This is the second person I've seen today who doesn't unsderstand that popularity has nothing to do with quality.
In the conditions that HTML was born and raised in a strict imperative language would have broken 100%.
Joke's on her - for years, almost all of HTML has been generated by strict imperative languages - and nowadays it's mostly done client-side!
Of course, it also benefitted from the fact that from the start there was no restrictions on HTML, HTTP, or the Web itself.
Other than the restrictions imposed by HTTP and HTML themselves.
Anyone could build a browser, and anyone could download a browser. On any machine, and on any Operating System.
She makes it sound like it's not the case anymore. While it's more true nowadays than ever before.
On the early WWW anyone could publish anyting. This meant that from the start the early web was weird as fuck. It was a place of Geocities, Angelfire, and Neopets.
People stuck weird things on there and just didn’t care.
She makes it sound... wait, I have just made this exact same complaint.
It was a place of Geocities, Angelfire, and Neopets.
People stuck weird things on there and just didn’t care. Want to declare your love for Justin Beiber? Go ahead!
She seems to have serious chronology issues.
The Browser Wars were one of the most damaging periods of the WWW’s history. Browser development completely froze, and all innovation stopped.
It's funny because the browser wars happened because of innovation in browser development. Browser developers invented new features that weren't supported by competition, and thus the split. The freeze happened later, when the browser wars stopped. Because the browser wars stopped.
TBC (or not)
-
@cartman82 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Bottom line, if additional revenue generated by supporting Africans, poor people, the disabled and tech luddites is less than the cost of making progressively enhancing super optimized websites, most companies will just put together a spa and a backend api, that can then be reused for their mobile app. Period.
This is exactly the kind of reasoning that necessitated the Americans With Disabilities Act. When large minorities (the disabled, for example) of a population are shut out of an economic sector, that's a failure of the market that should be addressed. If the companies aren't willing to part with revenue to service these populations, then there will be a legislative fix to compel them.
In fact, this is already starting:
First-of-its-kind trial goes plaintiff's way; Winn-Dixie ordered to update website for the blind | Legal Newsline
MIAMI (Legal Newsline) - In what is believed to be the first lawsuit of its kind to go to trial, a Florida federal judge has ruled for a blind man who has filed nearly 70 lawsuits alleging that various companies’ websites violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
-
@mzh said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@cartman82 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Bottom line, if additional revenue generated by supporting Africans, poor people, the disabled and tech luddites is less than the cost of making progressively enhancing super optimized websites, most companies will just put together a spa and a backend api, that can then be reused for their mobile app. Period.
This is exactly the kind of reasoning that necessitated the American's With Disabilities Act. When large minorities (the disabled, for example) of a population are shut out of an economic sector, that's a failure of the market that should be addressed. If the companies aren't willing to part with revenue to service these populations, then there will be a legislative fix to compel them.
In fact, this is already starting:
MIAMI (Legal Newsline) - In what is believed to be the first lawsuit of its kind to go to trial, a Florida federal judge has ruled for a blind man who has filed nearly 70 lawsuits alleging that various companies’ websites violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Something something, Clean Coder something
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
airline reservation apps didn't work over the flaky wifi in airports. Which you'd think would be one environment they'd test in.
That would be the last place I'd expect they'd test in; once you're in the airport and on the wi-fi, at that point you don't need to book an airline reservation!
-
@masonwheeler You might need to change a reservation. I remember once wanting to do that. I think I had gotten to the airport early enough — with no line at TSA — that I could have gotten an earlier flight, if I could have gotten the app to work.
-
@masonwheeler said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
That would be the last place I'd expect they'd test in; once you're in the airport and on the wi-fi, at that point you don't need to book an airline reservation!
Read. The. Fucking. Article.
-
@blakeyrat I did. Do not recommend.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Not to mention you glossed over the author's point about the rich white people who still had to pay extra fees because airline reservation apps didn't work over the flaky wifi in airports. Which you'd think would be one environment they'd test in. So it's an issue even if you're a complete dick who only cares about rich white people.
So the airline company is supposed to invest more money in their software so that people wouldn't have to occasionally pay it more money for reservation through phone.....?
I don't see how this example detracts from my point.
-
@lorne-kates said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
"My website only supports sub-group X because that's the only people who use the site."
Maybe only X uses the site because they're the only ones who CAN use it.
"No, that can't be it. I must be because there's no market for non-X."Didn't say there is no market, just that these customers aren't as lucrative as city people with MacBooks. As proven by the fact the market hasn't produced a competitor to jump in and swoop these customers up.
-
@mzh said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
This is exactly the kind of reasoning that necessitated the Americans With Disabilities Act. When large minorities (the disabled, for example) of a population are shut out of an economic sector, that's a failure of the market that should be addressed. If the companies aren't willing to part with revenue to service these populations, then there will be a legislative fix to compel them.
Exactly. There is a reason the government eventually steps in and forces you to support the edge cases.
Before AWDA, companies didn't ignore the disabled because the "architecture bros thought ramps are not cool", it's because there was no incentive to do so.
-
Just bumped into https://chicago.suntimes.com/, a prime example.
Since the NoScript plugin blocks javascript by default, it becomes painfully obvious that this site cannot be viewed with javascript turned off. They're a news site. With text, pictures and maybe video. Why can't it simply show text?
-
@jbert said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
They're a news site. With text, pictures and maybe video.
Like a forum!
-
@gąska Quite frankly, NodeBB still displays fine with javascript disabled: (Granted, it becomes impossible to interact with it, but even then it is nice enough to show a warning that the site is severly degraded without JS)
-
@pie_flavor said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@blakeyrat Mentioned, AFAICT, literally nowhere. Why not just link the talk video?
Because videos are annoying when you can also read text about the same thing at any speed you like, instead of at the speed the video is going, and lets you more easily tell where to skip forward and/or backward to if the current bit isn’t interesting?
-
@pie_flavor said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@blakeyrat Mentioned, AFAICT, literally nowhere. Why not just link the talk video? Then I can listen to it as fast as I could be reading it while doing something else.
If you can listen to it as you could be reading it, you must read slow as shit. I can't stand audiobooks or videos that should be text because I can read much, much faster than someone else can speak.
(Semi-
ed.)
-
While I agree quite a lot with this article from having a quick skim through from a tech perspective. A lot of people seem to want to use a particular tech rather than actually solve the problem. Or they want to not use a particular tech i.e. SPA and shoehorn a piece of shit tech in because they understand it and just make life difficult for everyone.
However she understands the "upside down pyramid" when it comes to tech but not when it comes to devices because unfortunately she is seeing everything through some sort of "marxist lens". She is bemoaning the fact that developers only started supporting mobile because of the money not altruism. Unfortunately there is not unlimited resources both, time, money and talent and you must prioritise them effectively i.e. to those who most use your application i.e. what you customers are looking for. She is trying to put the pyramid upside down in regards to the cost / benefit analysis of whether you should even support a platform.
You put your users first before potential users, not the other way around. If you are in a western country you know that most users will have a Smart phone. Even my dad who sits in his garage building things with Medieval Wood carving has a smart phone with an ebay installed on it to buy more ancient wood carving tools. Supporting everyone is great if you have the resources to do it, but not everyone does, sometimes you have to discriminate based on your development resources and whether it is viable. I am sure we all understand this.
@blakeyrat regarding whether users who don't have compatible phone browsers are trying to use a SPA web application. It is quite trivial to setup your server to log who is trying to use your application with either GA, or a server side equivalent. This is a tech problem, this is rather "is the company being dumb problem". If there is a significant number of people trying to use it is probably worth investigating for sure.
-
So, overall, good article. One point, speaking specifically to the types of apps I develop:
If you ever think “ffs, why don’t those users with old laptops and browsers just upgrade??” then try and think about their circumstances. Ask “can they afford to do so?”
Yes. They're a fucking business. They can afford to not use an insecure as shit browser.
Side note:
Such a simple thing, but offering a lever rather than a rotating knob means that the door becomes usable by people with arthritis, people who have hand or arm amputations, or people with hand/arm injuries.
They're also insecure, but there are mitigations that no one uses.
This is dumb
.
-
@jazzyjosh It is baffling to me how someone that can quite easily understand how how tech might work on a myriad of devices doesn't understand that market forces dominate which platforms were supported.
The only reason games these days have Linux support is because MacOS / iOS and Android became popular. Even with Steam OS it wouldn't have never really have happened if the two large mobile systems made porting games a lot easier because the incentive was there and the tooling got better over time because developers were demanding it from the aforementioned incentive.
-
@lucas1 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
she is seeing everything through some sort of "marxist lens".
That's where I stopped reading lucas1's retarded comment. Did anybody score better than me?
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
That's where I stopped reading lucas1's retarded comment. Did anybody score better than me?
Nope, I got the exact same score as you.
-
@blakeyrat Oh looks like someone wants an argument.
There was a lot of marxist crap saying market forces were bad. When in fact that they have improved the world for the better in a lot of ways. Market forces drive change. She seems to think we should do lots of things for free for people that aren't are target demographic, and have yet to pay any money.
I have been listening to a lot of Yaron Brook lectures recently who is the head of the Ayn Brand institute.
I said a marxist's lens because she wasn't going full bullshit.
As I said I don't disagree with her, but disagree with her in part because of stuff I outlined before.
If you wish to discuss those, please tell me what and where you find problematic :)
-
@lucas1 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
There was a lot of marxist crap saying market forces were bad. When in fact that they have improved the world for the better in a lot of ways. Market forces drive change. She seems to think we should do lots of things for free for people that aren't are target demographic, and have yet to pay any money.
As @MZH already mentioned, there are lots of places market forces fail, and supporting people with disabilities is one of them (see also the tragedy of the commons, any industry with positive or negative externalities). I guess it depends on your world view, but I don't believe the optimum society is one which requires people with (normally unavoidable) disabilities to pay more for the same level of service as able-bodied folk.
-
@charlieda I disagree. If a service doesn't support disabled people, someone can always create one that does.
Now I agree that companies should support disabled users. But realistically only the ones with the best resources are going to do so (and well).
Me and my manager at work have been championing it just to get Aria implemented properly. It not something users are asking for, so management don't care.
Do I risk my own job for users that don't exist? What am I to do?
-
@lucas1 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
If a service doesn't support disabled people, someone can always create one that does.
The point is that this isn't profitable to do in a completely free market, so other forces are needed to ensure it happens.
-
@charlieda You are talking to a guy that runs his own business. Unless there is a direct demand for this, I don't have the time to do it.
I won't do it unless the government will subsidise it or I am likely to get my cash back.
That being said, I try to make sure my sites work well and ARIA compliant, It is just a few tags etc not a big problem. What this chick is asking is that our sites work on anything. I worked at a very large betting company in the UK and they had over 90 developers making sure it worked on things back to 2008 blackberries. The resources needed are expensive. To the point that it simply isn't possible with a team of less than say 10 developers. So the average UK salary for a .NET developer is about $40,000, they are asking a business to spend £400,000 on something that won't necessarily bring back that much money.
If it is imposed everyone will lose out because it create disincentive to anyone just trying to make something. Overly zealous regulation fucks up innovation.
I think most web developers are crap, but if we put too much regulation in the industry we will kill it.
-
@lucas1 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@charlieda You are talking to a guy that runs his own business. Unless there is a direct demand for this, I don't have the time to do it.
I won't do unless the government will subsidise it or I am likely to get my cash back.
That being said, I try to make sure my sites work well and ARIA compliant.
I think we're all clear that as it won't make you a profit and you're not forced to do it, you won't do it.
If it is imposed everyone will lose out because it create disincentive to anyone just trying to make something. The new data protection acts if they happen will also do this because regulation fucks up innovation.
A counter-example would be the innovation generated by people with disabilities that's only available if companies are forced to cater to their needs. If those with disabilities don't have access to flights / news / scientific literature / technical tools, we could miss out on great advances in science and technology.
There is also the moral argument that it's the right thing to do, and correcting the market through regulation purely for the benefit of others is a good thing. Do you think you'd feel differently if you had a disability?
-
@charlieda said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
A counter-example would be the innovation generated by people with disabilities that's only available if companies are forced to cater to their needs. If those with disabilities don't have access to flights / news / scientific literature / technical tools, we could miss out on great advances in science and technology.
You are conflating ideas. I am talking about the market.
Regarding companies in the UK.
In the UK every disability has been taken care of in almost any institution. I could get an extra 20% time in exams but tbh that doesn't really help you if you don't know it to begin with so I opted out. In my current job there is a lift, disabled toilet. Automatic door opening for a person in a wheel chair.
The UK does it best to cater and mandate companies do. What could we do more in employment than what we do now?
Jesus there was a several disabled guys I worked with at Tesco on the checkouts who had some sort of disease where their legs were deformed.
The point I am getting at is that companies do employ disabled people and do make a lot of concessions for them.
There is also the moral argument that it's the right thing to do, and correcting the market through regulation purely for the benefit of others is a good thing. Do you think you'd feel differently if you had a disability?
I think I wouldn't want to be pandered to. I have 2 disabilities. I am dyslexic and dyspraxic. My dyslexia is very mild. While I might complain on here the odd time that people are being a bit unfair to me because of the pedantry. That is part of the experience here. My dyspraxia makes some tasks such as catching ball at the scrum somewhat stressful because I might not catch it, but I don't bitch about it. My disabilities are mild though.
My mother worked with very mentally disabled kids and while they were very lovely individuals they could be very fucking irritating as well.
-
@charlieda said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
as it won't make you a profit and you're not forced to do it, you won't do it
The only way for a business to continue to exist, is to make a profit or have enough cash in the bank to weather a downturn. Most businesses don't operate at a loss, unless they're a scam of some kind. If making a site accessible yields zero profit at best for some sites, then making accessibility mandatory would likely cause those sites to shut down completely, cut back on adding new features, cut back on hiring, etc.
-
@pie_flavor said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Then I can listen to it as fast as I could be reading it while doing something else.
Do you listen fast or read slow?
-
@charlieda said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@lucas1 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
If a service doesn't support disabled people, someone can always create one that does.
The point is that this isn't profitable to do in a completely free market, so other forces are needed to ensure it happens.
Translation: Do it or feel the government boot on your throat.
-
@heterodox said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
That's where I stopped reading lucas1's retarded comment. Did anybody score better than me?
Nope, I got the exact same score as you.
I think you two are judging it based on who said it. @lucas1 wasn't wrong. The article reeks of Marxism. The entire article is also absolute garbage as far as I managed to read it. Blakey should be ashamed for sharing it.
-
@gurth said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@pie_flavor said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@blakeyrat Mentioned, AFAICT, literally nowhere. Why not just link the talk video?
Because videos are annoying when you can also read text about the same thing at any speed you like, instead of at the speed the video is going, and lets you more easily tell where to skip forward and/or backward to if the current bit isn’t interesting?
Well I can play the video at the fastest speed I can possibly comprehend it at with the JS console, and I generally do. The second part then becomes not an issue.
-
@gąska said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Because HTML is interactive bitmap, not executable code. Try pulling random chunks of JavaScript that actually contains the webpage logic and see how that goes!
You can also pull chunks out of a word document, and it will still work, until you pull chunks out of microsoft word code.
That's how documents work.They aren't code themselves. HTML is not a programming language, it's a glorified document language.
-
@charlieda said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
The point is that this isn't profitable to do in a completely free market, so other forces are needed to ensure it happens.
Really? That's why Microsoft has accessibility? External forces?
It's just not a task for an individual company creating content. A better form would be the browser itself.
-
@jazzyjosh said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
This is dumb .
Imagine telling everyone they should use notepad for all their document needs, because Word takes too long to load.
No, you make it better. You stop the trend of loading everything and the kitchen sink for every single page.
-
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
The entire article is also absolute garbage as far as I managed to read it. Blakey should be ashamed for sharing it.
Disagreed.
-
@heterodox said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@pie_flavor said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@blakeyrat Mentioned, AFAICT, literally nowhere. Why not just link the talk video? Then I can listen to it as fast as I could be reading it while doing something else.
If you can listen to it as you could be reading it, you must read slow as shit. I can't stand audiobooks or videos that should be text because I can read much, much faster than someone else can speak.
(Semi-
ed.)As I mentioned above, you misunderstand what I am saying. I do not read at the speed I watch it, I watch it at the speed I read.
-
I'm curious. At what speed can you manage to listen and understand?
Of course it depends on how fast the speaker talks to begin with, but I usually top at 1.5x to 2x, and that's vastly inferior to how fast I can read.
More importantly, I can look at multiple paragraphs at a time and cut to the chase or re-read parts that didn't click the first time around.
In any case, you do what works for you.
-
@zecc It was an analogy, not a 1:1 comparison. I generally expect that if it's 3x then I can understand it, and higher than that is sometimes possible but only if I'm really paying attention to what they're saying. This of course changes depending on how fast the person is speaking.
-
In fact, this is already starting:
MIAMI (Legal Newsline) - In what is believed to be the first lawsuit of its kind to go to trial, a Florida federal judge has ruled for a blind man who has filed nearly 70 lawsuits alleging that various companies’ websites violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In terms of "trial", it may be, but in terms of legal action, and financial implications it is far from the first.
One of the considerations in not supporting ADA is that it makes it possible for government funds to be withheld [yes, there is an ironic double entendre between the acronym, and the language]. While this has not been universally applied, it has been in some significant cases.
-
@pie_flavor said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Why not just link the talk video?
Because that's evil. Just take a handful of your ADHD meds and read TFA. Way too many videos without transcriptions already floating around.
