While I appreciate the authors intent, I find the patronizing of designers frustrating. Design is functional, but it is also subjective. As a fully unimpaired user, I ENJOY designs that don’t satisfy AAA usability standards. Several of the designs negatively listed in the article I would site as sites that are very well designed both from an aesthetic sense and from a communicative sense. It is both limiting and foolish to conclude all design should meet all accessibility standards.
A similar analogy may be drawn concerning food stating “all food should be delicious”. To whom? I like salty food so someone who doesn’t like salt would not find the food I appreciate delicious. Answer? Make it bland and then expect me to add salt. The trouble with this thinking is that in design, I can’t just add salt. I am stuck with whatever the designer came up with to compromise between what they found most visually appealing and communicative of their brand and what would be accessible. True, there are cases where the two can be melded without ill effect but this article seems to argue that accessibility should always take precedent over everything else. Just because there is a desire to make something usable does not mean that the gap between unimpaired users and impaired users doesn’t exist. Also, failing to recognize that the vast majority of users are not impaired is also unfair. There should be balance to our approach. This article seems to recommend all design become blander for the sake of consumption. I strongly disagree.
Brett O'Donnell
While I appreciate the authors intent, I find the patronizing of designers frustrating. Design is functional, but it is also subjective. As a fully unimpaired user, I ENJOY designs that don’t satisfy AAA usability standards. Several of the designs negatively listed in the article I would site as sites that are very well designed both from an aesthetic sense and from a communicative sense. It is both limiting and foolish to conclude all design should meet all accessibility standards.
A similar analogy may be drawn concerning food stating “all food should be delicious”. To whom? I like salty food so someone who doesn’t like salt would not find the food I appreciate delicious. Answer? Make it bland and then expect me to add salt. The trouble with this thinking is that in design, I can’t just add salt. I am stuck with whatever the designer came up with to compromise between what they found most visually appealing and communicative of their brand and what would be accessible. True, there are cases where the two can be melded without ill effect but this article seems to argue that accessibility should always take precedent over everything else. Just because there is a desire to make something usable does not mean that the gap between unimpaired users and impaired users doesn’t exist. Also, failing to recognize that the vast majority of users are not impaired is also unfair. There should be balance to our approach. This article seems to recommend all design become blander for the sake of consumption. I strongly disagree.