-6

Stack Overflow, User Experience and other Stack Exchange (SE) sites are where developers come to get unstuck with their issues, and to learn developing. This target audience are the people who shape our technological future. This future, therefore, is very much influenced by the solutions suggested presented on the sites.

Unfortunately, most developers end up publishing software that excludes people, foremost those with disabilities, due to the inaccessible nature of their solutions.

Of course, there is the tag accessibility on several sites, but people asking there already do care. It would be necessary to sensitise those who never considered that aspect of development, who are learning.

So I was wondering how I could start making people aware of these issues in the solutions proposed on the Q&A sites here.

My maxim would be: There should not be examples on SE that have foundational accessibility issues. Or, if there are, the reader should be aware of the issues before using the solution. Just as the Mozilla Developer Network does. Their code examples are quite accessible, and they systematically add notes on accessibility.

So I considered the following, as a personal initiative:

  1. Leaving comments on accepted answers pointing out the issues
  2. Leaving these comments on the question
  3. Correcting the issues in the (accepted) answer, even if they are not directly linked to the question
  4. Adding an accessibility disclaimer to the (accepted) answer explaining the issues
  5. Adding another answer that offers a more accessible solution

Are there issues with SE’s policies in doing this? Am I missing other options?

Improve this question
16
  • 3
    I would only do 3 if there are really minor changes needed to acomplish that, otherwise 5 is your go-to solution. Leaving comments is fine, but if you spot the problem, it usually implies you know (part of) the solution, in that case please share that as well, which leads back to 3 and 5.
    – Luuklag
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 14:50
  • 6
    Is this about answers that offer bad solutions (ie code that would not be accessible) or about answers about any topic that are themselves not accessible?
    – Laurel
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 15:03
  • 1
    What @Laurel says - I already wrote a couple of paragraphs assuming the latter; it makes little sense if it's the former (but then your question is probably better off at Meta Stack Overflow).
    – Glorfindel Mod
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 15:07
  • It is mainly about answers that offer inaccessible solutions, while perfectly solving the issue the questioner knew they had (; But there are sometimes also questions that are looking for details of a solution in itself is not accessible. Does this respond to your second option?
    – Andy
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 15:07
  • @Glorfindel I figured this was the right place since this also concerns the UX StackExchange, but yes, it’s mainly about SO
    – Andy
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 15:08
  • 4
    It's not really any different than handling any other type of bad but superficially ok code (e.g. SQL injection). See also this question about irresponsible answers and another about dangerous code in a question and its answers.
    – Laurel
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 17:09
  • To close vote reviewers: As this appears relate to more than one site (though really only a couple), it is still on-topic for Meta SE. If it can only relate to one site, it would be closeable.
    – Spevacus Mod
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 18:06
  • Thanks @Rob, these are about the SE platform. I’m talking about the content, the answers given on the platform.
    – Andy
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 20:22
  • I gathered from comments 2,3&4, and the accessibility tag, that this was about content accessibility; indeed this would apply to many sites; an edit clearly stating the objective would be helpful.
    – Rob
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 20:30
  • 4
    Re "learn developing" Despite popular belief, that is only incidental and not the (current) purpose of Stack Overflow. Though hopefully the company will launch some new ground-breaking product in the future to address the learning part as there is very clearly a need for it. It should probably be more than a simple split.
    – This_is_NOT_a_forum
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 20:51
  • 3
    I wonder if this would work better as a feature request. Perhaps there should be an accessibility review queue?
    – LShaver
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 23:05
  • @LShaver: I was told this by my own accessibility review team where I work. One as a sighted person cannot reliably test something for accessibility, because you don't actually use the site in the same way. It's a totally different ball game, and given Stack Exchange's track record with queues, I couldn't trust anyone here with a queue as saying that their code is "accessible".
    – Makoto
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 18:17
  • @Makoto on re-reading the question, I think I mis-understood. I was thinking of a queue that would address questions and answers which had accessibility issues (no image alt-text, headings using bold rather than the heading markdown, etc.) This would assume that all Q&A content could be made accessible, but that it takes a bit of work. But I see the question is about whether the code included in an answer is accessible, which is probably outside of the scope of any SE site.
    – LShaver
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 19:19
  • What is an accessible answer? An answer that describes images that are linked to instead of just linking to them? Or can code itself somehow be more or less accessible?
    – forest distrusts StackExchange
    Commented Jul 13, 2022 at 0:43
  • @forestdistrustsStackExchange An example would be an answer that messes up keyboard navigation: focus.hteumeuleu.com
    – BSMP
    Commented Jul 13, 2022 at 6:07

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
17

I'm of the acute position that if someone elects to blatantly copy an answer from Stack Overflow, then they're already not testing for accessibility.

We already don't issue any warranty for the code we submit in answers, and we don't guarantee it fit for any purpose. Why should we change this by adding something for accessibility in answers? Then we're stating that it's fit for some purpose!

Improve this answer
4
  • 7
    +1 Example code should illustrate the answer, not be a template if the perfect way to implement something. If I'm trying to understand how to bind a function to a Widget A event, I don't need an explanation of how those widgets have accessibility issues, especially since it's difficult to understand the extent of and best remedy for a potential issue with such limited context.
    – ColleenV
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 20:37
  • 1
    Unfortunately this is not how most people use the site. Most people blindly copy the code, never reference neither the source, nor the author in their code, and they do not even consider that there might be conditions that apply. I got insulted for mentioning that all the code on stack overflow was published under a license.
    – Andy
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 11:13
  • 5
    @Andy: Yes, I'm aware of this. Acutely aware of this. This doesn't change my position since it shifts the responsibility of the quality and fitness of the code away from the only party that matters in the equation.
    – Makoto
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 15:28
  • 1
    Nonetheless, it's important to include any major "gotchas" caused by using the answer as-is. People coming to Stack Overflow for code can't be expected to understand every possible downside to an answer, even if they're not blatantly copying answers. Someone seeing a highly upvoted answer may reasonably think it's the "correct" way to do things, when actually it's a hack that should never be used in production.
    – Ryan M
    Commented Jul 13, 2022 at 2:39
4

The Stack Exchange network is a network of Q&A sites where the information provided is determined and limited by the question parameters.♧

What follows is that the only thing one can really do to raise awareness about and provide solutions for more inclusive solutions is to incorporate accessibility into a question, or provide good answers that go that extra mile.

Sure, commenting might nudge some users to revise their questions or answers, but this cannot be forced.

♧ And site scope and policy, and tag descriptions.
Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    This was 'inspired' by Makoto's great answer.
    – Joachim
    Commented Jul 13, 2022 at 9:15
-2

I firmly believe in accessible software. That's software for as many people as possible. In particular, software that doesn't kick people to the curb for having a disability.

When software is accessible, all users benefit.

An answer that gives a solution with fundamental accessibility problems is not a very good answer. That is, the answers written in such a way that anyone following the answer will produce inaccessible software.

If we want to get technical, such an answer might provide clickable spans, which have a number of accessibility problems, the biggest of which is that keyboard users cannot interact with them. (Keyboard users include the visually impaired who use screen readers and even power users who may find it easier on their hands to use a keyboard.) But there are more problems — a clickable span may look like a link but it doesn't behave like one, so no right clicking to open it in a new tab, or do anything like that.

Yes, accessibility can be hard, but these are supposed to be sites for expert answers.

Handling these answers is the same as any other not good answer:

  • Downvote!
    • For maximum benefit, you should leave a comment explaining why
  • Upvote correct, accessible answers
  • Write your own better answer if you can. Explain why it's better.

I looked back at an answer I downvoted last year for accessibility problems, and some of those techniques above allowed a more accessible answer to reach the top voted spot. The new trending option may also help better answers get more visibility.

Typically such answers are not flagged, and usually banners are not edited into them mentioning their problems.

For questions, if the accessibility issue isn't at the core of what it's asking, you can leave a comment pointing out what's wrong. Downvote if you see fit — or not. Having highly visible questions about "how to do [bad thing]" are valuable when they have answers that say "don't" and offer a better alternative.

Improve this answer
24
  • 5
    An answer which doesn't account for accessibility concerns in the context of there not being an explicit request for them is not "dangerous" by any stretch of the imagination. For instance, if someone is asking on how to load some form in a web framework, an appropriate (and thus useful) answer would be one that tells them to do just that. Downvoting it because it overlooks any hallmarks of accessibility is disingenuous and sends the exact wrong message that their answer was incorrect, when at best it could be argued "incomplete", but very weakly.
    – Makoto
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 21:33
  • 1
    @Makoto I can change it to a wording that you prefer, but the danger is very real: app/website accessibility lawsuits number in the 10 000s per year in the US according to the American Bar.
    – Laurel
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 21:46
  • 5
    ...and yet, I wouldn't quantify that as a danger in the same fashion as I would SQL injection. But again, my point is more or less centered around what it is we on Stack Overflow are actually responsible for. We wouldn't write an SQL query with string replacement - that's kinda drilled into us at this point. Not many of us know how to write a website that's accessible or meets certain accessibility requirements, which should entirely be its own extra question.
    – Makoto
    Commented Jul 11, 2022 at 23:14
  • 1
    In the end, to get digital products right, we need disciplines to collaborate. e.g. a security expert, and an accessibility expert etc. The same counts for the little pieces of the product, which are found on SE, right? In this sense maybe we should seek to collaborate on answers, and detach them from single persons. On the other hand, the gamification is what keeps SE running.
    – Andy
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 12:31
  • 1
    @Andy: Sure, we need disciplines to collaborate, but that's beyond my pay grade here on the Stack Exchange network. Someone asks a question, someone gets an answer, and of course there is a laundry list of caveats to it. Only the experts pay attention to that laundry list, but it's ultimately not my responsibility to be sure that a user accounts for every scenario. It'd be a jerk move of me to introduce bad practices, but I'm not going to go out of my way to ensure that the code I write adheres to every accessibility standard out there.
    – Makoto
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 15:56
  • 2
    @Makoto I'm afraid I don't understand what you're advocating. Are you saying that I shouldn't downvote answers that have accessibility problems? Because writing an answer without accessibility problems is too difficult? What is the exact criticism you have of the steps I've outlined?
    – Laurel
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 16:21
  • 2
    @Laurel: If you're presented with an answer that does not deal with any accessibility problems and the question has not explicitly asked for it to deal with accessibility problems, then it is disingenuous to downvote it, or treat it as dangerous. If the question explicitly expects accessibility help and the answer doesn't provide it, then downvoting is fine since by definition, the answer doesn't answer the question.
    – Makoto
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 16:52
  • 2
    @Makoto Why? So that people can write software that disabled people can't use? Do we just assume that the code is for the private pet project of the asker (and then why make it secure either)?
    – Laurel
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 17:07
  • 1
    @Makoto If someone asks a question about CSS animation, they shouldn't have to explicitly state that none of the answers should contain animation that triggers a seizure.
    – BSMP
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 17:59
  • 2
    @BSMP: That's a false equivalence. The subject matter of making things accessible is very nuanced and has different standards. Depending on the screen reader you're using, you may not be able to reliably account for every scenario (I know that JAWS and NVDA disagree in certain parts on certain things at certain times). Much like browsers, places have to choose which screen reader technology they elect to support because screen reader technology still acts like it's 2005 when it comes to compatibility. So just asking me to "support accessibility" is a crapshoot when you didn't ask about it.
    – Makoto
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 18:11
  • 1
    That’s why I’m using “foundational accessibility issues”. The large majority of suggested solutions doesn’t work in either screen reader. Take Images with missing alt attributes for example. Or Buttons with no text, inputs with no labels at all.
    – Andy
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 18:13
  • 2
    @Laurel: That's not the point of this. The answerer is not accountable unto the accessibility of any code that is written here; the asker is. If the asker does not inquire about accessibility, it is entirely out of scope for me to include it as a part of my answer.
    – Makoto
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 18:13
  • 3
    Yes @Andy, but you make my point. If one wants us to help them with making things compatible with any such screen reader, they need to be explicit about it. There are differences. There are things that are tolerable. We don't know what those things are just because we put some code on the site, and we can never know those things unless we are explicitly told what someone wants. Only way that happens is - you guessed it - if they explicitly ask us. If they don't, I'm not going to ever put the expectation on someone to write it into their answer.
    – Makoto
    Commented Jul 12, 2022 at 18:15
  • 2
    @Makoto I'm not sure why an accessibility problem is different than any other problem with an answer. Should we also not care about pointing out answers that only mask a bug, rather than fixing it, if the asker doesn't specify that the answer should actually solve the root cause? Should we not point out issues that could cause other harmful side-effects, like wiping your home directory, if the asker doesn't say that it should correctly handle errors? Should we ignore disabling SSL security entirely if the asker doesn't say the code should be secure?
    – Ryan M
    Commented Jul 13, 2022 at 2:54
  • 1
    @RyanM: Because accessibility issues aren't as straightforward as other issues. They are specialized issues that most sighted users simply cannot identify at "a glance". I work at an institution that does require and mandate ADA requirements, but I need a different machine to test things on (a Windows laptop to run JAWS/NVDA since I work on Linux). You cannot put the requirement on an answerer to "point out" an accessibility issue because they may not be in a position to, and unless the asker is requiring it, it is disingenuous to treat it as an "incorrect" answer.
    – Makoto
    Commented Jul 13, 2022 at 15:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .