>> I was recommended by (don't laugh!) my horoscope to not make any resolutions to bog myself down, but rather wait until the new moon in February to make helpful intentions instead, and I really loved the idea! <<
Oh, that's an interesting perspective! I like exploring different aspects of resolutions, so it's fun to see what different ideas people have.
>>I think I'd like to attempt to learn knitting again?<<
Thank you for the tutorials! I'll have to see if I can make them work or not. (I have an issue with nerve damage, so my hands sometimes just simply refuse to do what I want them to, which I think is, sadly, the main problem with my attempts to knit...but it can't hurt to try again, surely!)
And "static responsive webdesign" is just making static sites (think the everyday personal hobbyist sites that are hopefully going through a bit of a renaissance at the moment) that will look good and most importantly, be accessible on any screen resolution at all, be it on a phone or a desktop. Personal sites that have a "eh, I don't care if it looks crap on your screen, it looks fine on mine" attitude are absolute poison for my migraine-prone eyes/head and just smack of laziness (if not unintentional ableism) to me, so I'm really quite passionate about making it A Thing ♥
>> Thank you for the tutorials! I'll have to see if I can make them work or not.<<
I'm happy I could help.
>> (I have an issue with nerve damage, so my hands sometimes just simply refuse to do what I want them to, which I think is, sadly, the main problem with my attempts to knit...but it can't hurt to try again, surely!) <<
Oh, well, adaptive knitting is a whole different branch. There are tutorials for one-handed knitting, and different grips, and so forth. Try searching on YouTube to see what's currently available.
With nerve damage, I'd start with whatever tools often help it, like ergonomic grips. If you already have universal grippers or gripper gloves (used for spoons, toothbrushes, etc.) then most of those will also fit knitting needles. There are also knitting tools with built-in ergonomics of various styles. Bigger knitting needles and thicker yarn are often easier to work with than smaller ones.
>> And "static responsive webdesign" is just making static sites (think the everyday personal hobbyist sites that are hopefully going through a bit of a renaissance at the moment) <<
Interesting.
>> that will look good and most importantly, be accessible on any screen resolution at all, be it on a phone or a desktop. <<
That's really hard to do, because there are just so many different programs and devices interacting. I see a lot of sites that try to optimize for one mode and don't work with others, or that try to fit everything and wind up not working well. Common problems include a view that doesn't resize or orient itself properly, losing scroll bars or buttons, and pop-ups that can't be closed because their closure is off the screen somewhere. 0_o My readers -- who often use mobile devices whereas I'm on a desktop -- report problems with different sites, and different types of problems. Best I can do is not link to a site that has problems I can see, and if it's hangfiring for other folks, try to find a replacement link, but there isn't always a replacement with the far-out stuff I reference.
Still, I think it's really useful to have people working on this problem. I hope you find new and interesting ways to built websites, or coding tools, that make things more legible with more devices/programs.
>> Personal sites that have a "eh, I don't care if it looks crap on your screen, it looks fine on mine" attitude are absolute poison for my migraine-prone eyes/head and just smack of laziness (if not unintentional ableism) to me, <<
I think there are a variety of things going on here:
* Most people don't know enough about accessibility to realize what is needed or how to use it, which leads to a patchy set of tools, which leads to a lot of clunky sites. Even if you do know about accessibility, nobody knows all the special needs and accommodations; some are common but others are really obscure. This can be improved by offering better tools, preferably with a two-way listing of conditions and tools that help them vs. tools and conditions they address. People need somewhere to go with, "My client has problem X with my website, how do I fix that?"
* Not everyone has the coding skill to build or even adapt their own website. Most are using whatever package someone else came up with. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad, but often there isn't much if anything that they personally can do about it. They're working with what they can get and use, not necessarily what they'd like to have. Again, this can be improved with better tools.
* There's no such thing as universal design. Very often, people simply need different things, and sometimes those are incompatible. The high-contrast black-and-white design that maximizes usability for low vision is often too bright for people who get headaches or eyestrain from screens with a lot of white on them, whereas a dimmer lower-contrast design that is gentler on the eyes is illegible to someone with low vision. Inclusive design often does best when it maximizes user choice so that different people can pick whatever works best for them.
With computers, that's often a toggle that tells the computer what you're doing so it can serve you content framed for that. Do you want to read the site in English or French? Are you on a desktop or mobile device? What browser are you using? So if we move into adaptive aspects, that could be, Do you want to view this in full color, colorblind, or black-and-white mode? One I've seen in my fantasy setting Terramagne, but not here yet, is a text/visual toggle. The text mode gives you mostly words illustrated with a few necessary pictures, and the visual mode gives you mostly images explained with a few necessary words. Think about the difference between a text vs. image based knitting or crochet pattern or instructions. Because people absorb information differently, they can have a really hard time if it's in a format they don't use well, and flipping between those two covers more people than only one. Closest thing I've seen to it here are the little floating text-tags that will tell you what is in an image.
* Most people simply don't have the background or vocabulary to articulate why something bothers them. They'll says it's ugly or stupid or they don't want to use it, but there is often one or more problems under there which they aren't specifying but are relevant. Take the colorblind palettes. Most people just say they are ugly, which is a problem unto itself if it makes them want to avoid a website. But for me, those palettes would make a site much harder to navigate and use, because I have really high-end color vision that makes me uncomfortable with changing tint (so for instance, I can't stand sunglasses), and I use changes in color to find things. Of course we prefer different tools, I have whole little body parts that colorblind folks just don't have. So we can't easily read things in the other mode. Being able to flip back and forth between those modes, rather than have a single palette for everyone, would widen the possible users. I suspect the same thing is happening with some of the accessibility-testing websites. They're encouraging people to use things that are more helpful for some folks but less helpful for others. Some of this can be fixed with wider awareness, but some of it again comes down to tools and choices.
* Site design starts with the builder and/or owner, the core users. It has to be comfortable for them, whatever that is. Then, it has to be comfortable for their target audience. This is often what people mean by "It works for me." It does what they need it to do. And if it doesn't do that, then they can't use it, but they may not be framing it that way. They know they don't like a thing, but rarely seem to specify, "Thing X causes problem Y for me." Most modern folks seem to need a level of stimulation that is unusable for me -- constantly having things that move, flicker, pile on top of each other, make noise, etc. -- whereas they struggle to focus on something that is not doing those things. Different needs, again. This part is a lot about knowing what you need, what other people need, and how to talk about those things so you can find workable solutions.
>> so I'm really quite passionate about making it A Thing ♥ <<
I'm delighted to see someone working on this. I've been saying for years that we need more programmers with disabilities because they will build things and find solutions that nobody else has bothered to do, or realizes are needed. I think the more different tools we have, and the easier it is to customize things for different needs, the more accessible cyberspace will become.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Thoughts
Date: 2023-01-02 06:50 am (UTC)Oh, that's an interesting perspective! I like exploring different aspects of resolutions, so it's fun to see what different ideas people have.
>>I think I'd like to attempt to learn knitting again?<<
Good tutorials here:
https://www.allfreeknitting.com/
https://www.allfreeknitting.com/Knitting-Tutorials
>>how horribly purity culture and toxic positivity is for mental illness sufferers in particular.<<
Honestly, the whole society is turning into a trainwreck. :/
>> static responsive webdesign and calligraphy! <<
I think calligraphy is pretty. Another of my friends is learning signwriting.
I haven't heard that version of webdesign though.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2023-01-03 09:58 pm (UTC)And "static responsive webdesign" is just making static sites (think the everyday personal hobbyist sites that are hopefully going through a bit of a renaissance at the moment) that will look good and most importantly, be accessible on any screen resolution at all, be it on a phone or a desktop. Personal sites that have a "eh, I don't care if it looks crap on your screen, it looks fine on mine" attitude are absolute poison for my migraine-prone eyes/head and just smack of laziness (if not unintentional ableism) to me, so I'm really quite passionate about making it A Thing ♥
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2023-01-04 12:24 am (UTC)I'm happy I could help.
>> (I have an issue with nerve damage, so my hands sometimes just simply refuse to do what I want them to, which I think is, sadly, the main problem with my attempts to knit...but it can't hurt to try again, surely!) <<
Oh, well, adaptive knitting is a whole different branch. There are tutorials for one-handed knitting, and different grips, and so forth. Try searching on YouTube to see what's currently available.
With nerve damage, I'd start with whatever tools often help it, like ergonomic grips. If you already have universal grippers or gripper gloves (used for spoons, toothbrushes, etc.) then most of those will also fit knitting needles. There are also knitting tools with built-in ergonomics of various styles. Bigger knitting needles and thicker yarn are often easier to work with than smaller ones.
https://simmonslis.libguides.com/KnittingGuide/Disability
https://knittingneedleguide.com/best-ergonomic-knitting-needles-for-arthritis/
https://knitpal.com/blogs/knitpal/the-best-ergonomic-knitting-tools-for-everyday-use
https://yayforyarn.com/ergonomic-knitting-for-hand-pain/
>> And "static responsive webdesign" is just making static sites (think the everyday personal hobbyist sites that are hopefully going through a bit of a renaissance at the moment) <<
Interesting.
>> that will look good and most importantly, be accessible on any screen resolution at all, be it on a phone or a desktop. <<
That's really hard to do, because there are just so many different programs and devices interacting. I see a lot of sites that try to optimize for one mode and don't work with others, or that try to fit everything and wind up not working well. Common problems include a view that doesn't resize or orient itself properly, losing scroll bars or buttons, and pop-ups that can't be closed because their closure is off the screen somewhere. 0_o My readers -- who often use mobile devices whereas I'm on a desktop -- report problems with different sites, and different types of problems. Best I can do is not link to a site that has problems I can see, and if it's hangfiring for other folks, try to find a replacement link, but there isn't always a replacement with the far-out stuff I reference.
Still, I think it's really useful to have people working on this problem. I hope you find new and interesting ways to built websites, or coding tools, that make things more legible with more devices/programs.
>> Personal sites that have a "eh, I don't care if it looks crap on your screen, it looks fine on mine" attitude are absolute poison for my migraine-prone eyes/head and just smack of laziness (if not unintentional ableism) to me, <<
I think there are a variety of things going on here:
* Most people don't know enough about accessibility to realize what is needed or how to use it, which leads to a patchy set of tools, which leads to a lot of clunky sites. Even if you do know about accessibility, nobody knows all the special needs and accommodations; some are common but others are really obscure. This can be improved by offering better tools, preferably with a two-way listing of conditions and tools that help them vs. tools and conditions they address. People need somewhere to go with, "My client has problem X with my website, how do I fix that?"
* Not everyone has the coding skill to build or even adapt their own website. Most are using whatever package someone else came up with. Maybe it's good, maybe it's bad, but often there isn't much if anything that they personally can do about it. They're working with what they can get and use, not necessarily what they'd like to have. Again, this can be improved with better tools.
* There's no such thing as universal design. Very often, people simply need different things, and sometimes those are incompatible. The high-contrast black-and-white design that maximizes usability for low vision is often too bright for people who get headaches or eyestrain from screens with a lot of white on them, whereas a dimmer lower-contrast design that is gentler on the eyes is illegible to someone with low vision. Inclusive design often does best when it maximizes user choice so that different people can pick whatever works best for them.
With computers, that's often a toggle that tells the computer what you're doing so it can serve you content framed for that. Do you want to read the site in English or French? Are you on a desktop or mobile device? What browser are you using? So if we move into adaptive aspects, that could be, Do you want to view this in full color, colorblind, or black-and-white mode? One I've seen in my fantasy setting Terramagne, but not here yet, is a text/visual toggle. The text mode gives you mostly words illustrated with a few necessary pictures, and the visual mode gives you mostly images explained with a few necessary words. Think about the difference between a text vs. image based knitting or crochet pattern or instructions. Because people absorb information differently, they can have a really hard time if it's in a format they don't use well, and flipping between those two covers more people than only one. Closest thing I've seen to it here are the little floating text-tags that will tell you what is in an image.
* Most people simply don't have the background or vocabulary to articulate why something bothers them. They'll says it's ugly or stupid or they don't want to use it, but there is often one or more problems under there which they aren't specifying but are relevant. Take the colorblind palettes. Most people just say they are ugly, which is a problem unto itself if it makes them want to avoid a website. But for me, those palettes would make a site much harder to navigate and use, because I have really high-end color vision that makes me uncomfortable with changing tint (so for instance, I can't stand sunglasses), and I use changes in color to find things. Of course we prefer different tools, I have whole little body parts that colorblind folks just don't have. So we can't easily read things in the other mode. Being able to flip back and forth between those modes, rather than have a single palette for everyone, would widen the possible users. I suspect the same thing is happening with some of the accessibility-testing websites. They're encouraging people to use things that are more helpful for some folks but less helpful for others. Some of this can be fixed with wider awareness, but some of it again comes down to tools and choices.
* Site design starts with the builder and/or owner, the core users. It has to be comfortable for them, whatever that is. Then, it has to be comfortable for their target audience. This is often what people mean by "It works for me." It does what they need it to do. And if it doesn't do that, then they can't use it, but they may not be framing it that way. They know they don't like a thing, but rarely seem to specify, "Thing X causes problem Y for me." Most modern folks seem to need a level of stimulation that is unusable for me -- constantly having things that move, flicker, pile on top of each other, make noise, etc. -- whereas they struggle to focus on something that is not doing those things. Different needs, again. This part is a lot about knowing what you need, what other people need, and how to talk about those things so you can find workable solutions.
>> so I'm really quite passionate about making it A Thing ♥ <<
I'm delighted to see someone working on this. I've been saying for years that we need more programmers with disabilities because they will build things and find solutions that nobody else has bothered to do, or realizes are needed. I think the more different tools we have, and the easier it is to customize things for different needs, the more accessible cyberspace will become.