>How about some actually constructive criticism on the structure of how this library actually works?
Well, accessibility is deeply about how it works, not so much something that can be tacked on afterwards.
Plus I think this is something constructive to consider.
"More than 3.4 million (3%) Americans aged 40 years and older are either legally blind (having visual acuity [VA] of 20/200 or worse or a visual field of less than 20 degrees) or are visually impaired (having VA of 20/40 or less) (Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group, 2004)."
The percentage goes up sharply with age.
My daughter is a power user with a retinal disease. Being constantly marginalized as an unimportant case kinda sucks.
It's undeniably true that accessibility is a basic necessity rather than a feature. But is it fair to expect accessible features on an experimental technology?
Well, accessibility is deeply about how it works, not so much something that can be tacked on afterwards.
Plus I think this is something constructive to consider.
"More than 3.4 million (3%) Americans aged 40 years and older are either legally blind (having visual acuity [VA] of 20/200 or worse or a visual field of less than 20 degrees) or are visually impaired (having VA of 20/40 or less) (Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group, 2004)."
The percentage goes up sharply with age.
My daughter is a power user with a retinal disease. Being constantly marginalized as an unimportant case kinda sucks.