If a touch of whimsy suits only one particular medium, could we find ways to compensate in others?Īnother example is Google’s long-standing design for their pagination where an o from the stretched out Gooooooogle accompanies each number in the list of results, as if to vocalise how loooooong it is. Could there be an alternative plain or clean version of the same data, presented with the same care? Rather than viewing access as an imposition that narrows your options, think of it as an invitation to think outside the box.
Other people just find it annoying, which seems fair. It can also be tough for screen readers to work with, particularly when it’s being used for something like a graphics-heavy display of data. I’m not the only one who struggles with parallax scrolling. But in many cases the interaction cannot be triggered by keyboard, and there are no alternative, accessible labels - never mind that many people prefer not to encounter motion at all when browsing the web. There’s a competitive advantage to features like these, especially in agency land (it’s a bit of a flex, isn’t it). I do love the slow, satisfying inertia that ON has fine-tuned to perfection. The way this particle animation on responds to pointer events is mesmerising. To give an example, check out the interactive particle animation presented front and center on this agency landing page: And you should not feel guilty for getting creative with pointer interactions! But consider the equivalent for a screen reader user - is there anything in your design that elicits the same “huh, that’s neat” reaction from someone who can‘t see it? When not tied to critical functionality, these features are clearly a progressive enhancement, sometimes even intentionally a bit hidden. Think interactive gradient backgrounds that change colour as you hover across a page, particle animations that respond to pointer speed and direction, or any non-essential hover state that doesn’t also respond to a focus event. The simplest example is anything triggered by a pointing device. Let’s start by looking at how common playful touches can leave out users of assistive technologies. Playful design as a progressive enhancement Different representations should not be a mere means of accessing some one true default - they’re opportunities to add features and creative touches that shine only in a particular medium. Training myself to notice these alternative features, while not strictly fun in the sense that I was going for, still helps me move away from thinking of one type of design as the default. But when I asked local leading accessibility consultant Jakob Rosin for his input, his examples, too, were mostly about functional alternatives, not the playful ones. It’s a little harder to find those that are added specifically with that audience in mind: by definition, they would likely be lost on me. I can spot creative touches that don’t work well for users of assistive technologies (I’ll share a few below). What’s the equivalent of a playful design for people who don’t necessarily experience the visual, high-speed or animated version of it?Īny visual, hearing, motor, vestibular or other impairments I face are mostly situational, so I can’t draw on experience here. But when it comes to accessibility, we tend to take the term literally: can this be accessed? Articles on accessibility focus on functionality, and the small, non-essential moments of delight are reserved mostly for mouse or touchpad users with good eyesight. We’ve been taught that UX is not only about function, but about delight, whimsy, wit, and beauty. This may be true for Konami code, but it made me wonder - instead of keeping easter eggs and bonus content neatly tucked away so that they don’t break when assistive technology is involved, how often are these elements added with inclusivity in mind from the start? The implication is that by minimising any chances of encountering a feature, you can avoid putting in the work to make it accessible. Much of discussion focuses on how likely it is that the key sequence could be triggered accidentally. It’s sometimes used as a way to trigger easter eggs on websites.)
#Airtable blocks code#
( Konami code, a sequence of specific keypresses, is a cheat code originating from video games. Consider this question posted on the UX community on Stack Exchange:ĭoes including a Konami-code triggered Easter Egg negatively impact keyboard accessibility?
0 kommentar(er)
