Accessibility is the practice of making resources accessible to people. It often involves handling disabilities in a special way. In general, you should always care about it.


There are companies providing accessibility as a service. This is ridiculous, laughable, wrong, stupid and shameful. Such services shall be ignored, their clients shall be educated xor ostracized.

Here's a list of such services I've found on real websites.

You do not need such services. To make your resource accessible, just follow the web standards and use common sense. Browsers, screen readers and operating systems will do the rest for you for free.

I also wanted to find some real+true reviews of these services from people who really care about a11y, such as blind people, but couldn't find one. Well.

TODO: someone has sent me a link to a review. Gotta take a look.

Rohan Kumar compiled a long and detailed list of guidelines to follow when designing a textual website. This is a good document, I recommend reading it.

The typical developer’s relationship with accessibility, if they have one at all, is mainly concerned with making web pages work with screen readers. Even considering this very narrow goal, most developers have an even narrower understanding of the problem, and end up doing a piss-poor job of it. In essence, the process of doing accessibility badly involves making a web page for a sighted user, then using ARIA tags to hide cosmetic elements, adding alt tags, and making other surface-level improvements for users of screen readers. If they’re serious, they may reach for the WCAG guidelines and do things like considering contrast, font choices, and animations as well, but all framed within the context of adding accessibility band-aids onto a UI designed for sighted use.

The purpose of this tool is to assist the user by proposing words while typing, a bit like smartphones do. It can be trained with a dictionary, a text file but also learn from user inputs over time.

There are several podcasts where people talk about the viability of Linux on the desktop. However, as Linux reaches more and more mainstream users, it brings to light the disappointing truth that not everyone can use it. Those with disabilities, who could be the most helped by its open-source nature, are instead left for the for-profit companies which, regardless of what else they’ve done, at least have made their offerings more or less accessible.

The author returned to Windows.

The author calls blind people to develop open-source software for the blind. They say such software ends up being better.

Also imagine that there is a form of art that 95% of other humans can produce and consume, but for you is either blank or filled with meaningless letters and numbers ending in .JPEG, .PNG, .BMP, or other computer jargon, and the only way to perceive it is to humbly ask that the image is converted to the only form of input your digital interface can understand, straight, plain text. This same majority of people have access to everything digital technology has to offer. You, though, have access to very little in comparison. Your interface cannot interpret anything that isn't created in a standards-compliant way. And this culture, full of those who need to stand out, doesn't like standards.

The author states that accessibility is not a binary thing.

Perhaps they do. Mycorrhiza lacks modifier keys for most hotkeys, might be a bad thing.