The rule also mandates universal Bluetooth standards and volume control compliance for all smartphones.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      “We”.

      Try being autistic and not disabled and using smartphones with sweaty hands and tired eyes. And modern UI design in general.

      I’ve been dreaming of a certain legislation for PC user interfaces and the Web since 10 years ago ; in essence that would mandate that everything governmental and commercial should be usable for blind people (because with modern UI\UX I want to close my eyes and pretend I’m blind) with screen readers and Braille terminals.

      That legislation would absolutely kill what clueless crowds call “user-friendly UIs”, and I would be happy and gleeful, because it wouldn’t kill UIs following good old industrial ergonomics.

      It would, of course, present a lot of challenges for such a transition.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        The UI shitshow today is unbelievable. Low contrast being the “cool” thing. I have great Vision and find it frustrating - I can only imagine what it’s like for people with vision issues.

      • podperson@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Can’t speak to PC UI, but for the web, “public good” entities and government institutions have to follow ADA guidelines on usability for differently-abled people. Weird, because the law says this but does not get specific on what exactly must be done to be compliant. The gist is that those entities are “supposed to” follow WCAG, although those are only guidelines and not mandates.

        I work in healthcare and our org, although we made best effort to make our site accessible for screen readers, color impairment issues, etc, we were still sued (lawsuit was a bit of a shakedown) and are now working to address and remediate each item in the suit with a third party. We want to be fully compliant but as of yet, there isn’t a “set of rules” that we can all look to make these sites compliant (basically just a bunch of suggestions). Weird times we live in.

      • gramie@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        In Ontario, any organization that receives provincial money must reach a certain accessibility level on its website, or risk having its funding removed.

      • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        And by challenges, they mean a handful of multinational Corporations would make slightly less profit for 3-5 years.

      • Anivia@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        So you want to severely inconvenience the vast majority of people for your own personal gain?

        Surely there is a better compromise

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          So you want to severely inconvenience the vast majority of people for your own personal gain?

          That’s what they do with walkways, is it not?

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Hahaha, right,right.

          Making something usable by more people is “severely inconveniencing” someone. 🤦‍♂️