I'm quite sad that accessibility is not mentioned at all, because I'd say it is THE CLASSIC feature that many users pine for but developers frequently overlook.
Just to name a few of the major ones:
* Screen-Reader Support
* Alt-text for images
* Sensible zoom behaviour
* Options for keyboard input (instead of relying on mouse)
* Colour-blind & high-vis color schemes (Though "change color of things" covers that, at least)
Funny side-effect is that implementing this stuff very often (I'd even say almost always) makes the product better for your non-disabled/non-handicapped customers as well.
What percentage of customers actually request accessibility features such as screen reader support? I agree that every application should strive to be accessible for screen readers and the lowest common denominator but if the project manager had to prioritize features to develop, they'd choose features that majority of customers are requesting such as the things mentioned on the list.
> they'd choose features that majority of customers are requesting
Just an interesting Side-note: features customers REQUEST and features customers CARE ABOUT are not the same.
People are great at telling what they like or don't like when you show it to them, but they're not always great at telling you how to improve it.
I can't find the source now, but I've come across a story of a game in which players were complaining that the shotgun was too weak. The game devs solved this problem by... increasing the reload time on the sniper rifle, and the complaints went away. The players could correctly tell that there was a problem, but incorrectly diagnosed the best solution (assuming the devs were right in their decision).
Here are some random articles going over this argument in more detail:
> I'm quite sad that accessibility is not mentioned at all...
Yes, there isn't a specific accessibility category mentioned, but they did include a lot of accessibility items indirectly. "Good contrast", "Automatic contrast of text if I pick a dark/light background", are mentioned in color, those are 100% accessibility. And some are mentioned in UX, "Support touch gestures and mouse", and "Keyboard shortcuts".
Fair enough; I am glad that those are mentioned, at least.
EDIT: I wouldn't say they're 100% accessibility, though. I think it actually supports my point that even when you aren't thinking about accessibility, the accessibility features still aid your average user.
Do you have any examples of accessibility features improving the experience for the average user? Websites with poor text contrast (or ultra-thin fonts) come to mind.
* If it's easier to see with poor vision, it's also easier to see with normal vision / projected on a projector / over someone's shoulder on their screen / on a phone or tablet.
* Supporting screen-readers often makes it easier to scrape the site / app (not an 'average' use-case, I realize, and maybe even something the site / app owner wants to discourage) and to copy-paste.
* Supporting screen-readers also makes it easier to switch to 'text-only' or 'de-clutter' modes.
* Supporting (good) keyboard input can make things faster even for people with the option of using a mouse.
* Alt-text is useful if on a slow internet connection and images don't load, or even to describe an image you maybe didn't understand. It also usually gets copy-pasted out if you do a ctrl-a ctrl-c, so you have context of what images were shown where in the text.
* Video subtitles are useful for you to be able to choose to watch a video without sound.
* If your app / site can be used by someone with mental impairments, it's easier for all users.
Most web accessibility stuff does not involve adding disability-specific aid such as sign language, or braille, or ramps. For websites, you can get at least 50% of the way by just following the basic web standards, which I think is self-evidently beneficial.
Note: I am not arguing that the cost-benefit is necessarily in the company's best interest. I.e., I am not saying that including an accessibility feature is beneficial enough to the average user that it's worth the cost of development. I am merely claiming that adding an accessibility feature almost invariably does bring some benefit to other users. However, I will say I think that programmers and companies do routinely underestimate the benefits and overestimate the costs of actually developing these basic accessibility features.
Just to name a few of the major ones:
* Screen-Reader Support
* Alt-text for images
* Sensible zoom behaviour
* Options for keyboard input (instead of relying on mouse)
* Colour-blind & high-vis color schemes (Though "change color of things" covers that, at least)
Funny side-effect is that implementing this stuff very often (I'd even say almost always) makes the product better for your non-disabled/non-handicapped customers as well.