Open SachaG opened 1 year ago
My objections:
What I proposed was to harmonize the disabilities question with the question about "What kind of user disabilities do you account for when making websites?"
Not only for consistency, but also:
prefers-reduced-motion
was designed for) currently have to resort to "Other…". So yes, you won't get people mentioning it, because we've generally observed people don't use "Other…" even when it's relevant, and this is an even smaller population.to get a vague general sense of what percentage of respondents live with disabilities, and not to precisely identify the ratios of each disabilities.
If that's the goal, we can just ask them if they have any disabilities and leave it at that, like this question on e.g. greenhouse:
If we break it into categories, we should do it in a way that is intuitive and does not exclude people and minimize the percentage of disabled folk even more. There's enough erasure as it stands.
Some data points about whether participants feel their disabilities are actually covered by the survey options:
State of JS 2022
"Not listed" by far the most popular disability with 1.7 times the responses of all others combined.
State of CSS 2022
"Not listed" by far the most popular disability with 1.3 times the responses of all others combined.
State of CSS 2023 appears to be buggy wrt "Not Listed" or did not have this option:
Btw CSS 2023 did not actually have a "not listed" option, since it had the "other…" option instead.
Split up visual impairments into low vision and atypical color vision
Strongly agree: people who are blind or have low vision will be affected way more and require different accommodations to someone with atypical color vision (which varies from the very common reduced ability to differentiate these two colors to the extremely rare can't see color at all)
@LeaVerou suggested to: