This is a very spammy comment, but if anyone is interested but it's not a good time to sign up, you can sign up to my (totally not spammy) mailing list and get an accessibility poster as a bonus: https://myaccessible.website/subscribe
Yes, because it captures the data using a Chrome Extension. You have to navigate to the page and use the extension to capture the data.
This means it works on sites that aren't even on the public internet, localhost, you name it.
The image is basically there to be decorative.
In that scenario, an empty alt attribute is used to inform assistive technology that yes, there is an image here, but it isn't adding any further information.
It's actually one of the main things that MAWD helps with right now.
Putting alt text on all the images of random cats on a website only adds value to people if the cats are at all relevant to the content :)
Exactly, it sort of re-inforces my point that when I was designing that site I didn't really think about it.
I don't have to be an accessibility expert to discuss the fact that developers don't tend to create accessible sites!
I really liked the first font from a design standpoint and found it quite readable! It's ridiculous you're being attacked for voicing a very valid concern on your own blog, because of your preferred font choice. A lot of the comments both on your blog and on here seem to almost be mocking the idea that sites should be accessible, by making an unwarranted personal attack against you, when you clearly state you were never even introduced to accessibility programming through formal education, like lots and lots of developers weren't ( myself included ).
Forcing programmers to jump through extra hoops (trying /em to learn on their own, and making well-intentioned changes but not knowing if its right or enough or effective) is not the way to increase knowledge and uptake of accessibility-minded-design as the standard.
It would be nice if designers were still able to make stylistic choices with regards to fonts and website colors, that may be less readable for some, but have it degrade easily to something more readable with a simple command or click of a button. Besides some roundabout ways i can think of, or using readability, im not sure how to do that easily though.
That's an unfair criticism. The author (and I, and the rest of us) are not focussing our efforts logically. We can see browser stats in server logs, but measuring disabled or impaired visitors' traffic is easy to overlook - servers don't collect this data point.
She's now raised the issue for a wider audience and this could only be hypocrisy if she held herself up as an example of how to do things correctly. She isn't, and says so right at the top of the article.
I think its a love/hate thing with my site theme. I've had a lot of comments that it looks fantastic. I think I'll have to increase the font size at least.
Don't increase the font size (it doesn't help). Even when they're larger, certain characters (ie - SQL) are completely unreadable. Script is always a bad idea on the front-end.
I also recommend choosing a more standard font. Personally, I left the site after trying to read the article and finding it a quite unpleasant experience to try to read.
IE8 was 6%, which I think still validates the point. I actually chose IE9 because a lot of companies have actually dropped support on IE8 but are still supporting IE9 (mine included).
Fair enough, I guess the usage is just lower then I thought which is great news. As another commenter mentioned though it is very dependent on industry, I wouldn't be surprised if some enterprise applications have much higher IE usage.
Exactly, it feels like they are artificially boosting the figures here because when people look at Google stats they think tech anyway. The Tech only figures are much more male-skewed.
