I’m a keyboard fan, for multiple reasons, some good. So any task that requires a mouse annoys me a lot. One of those seems to be dismissing the announcement pop-up right after I log in. I have already disabled in my settings the announcements about tourneys and streams, as I have no use for them, and that seems to cover most of them – but some seep through, such as today’s message about improved AI support for subscribers from @anoek . As much as I appreciate the new features, I wish I could have gotten rid of the pop-up with one keystroke, go through my games and then read the news at leisure. But the obvious ways like hitting Esc do not work and in the end I’m forced to move the mouse to that position, and then to move it again to the goban area to get on with my games.
If I’m not just overlooking something, can this be added / fixed ? Please consider it as an accessibility issue. Thanks.
In my humble opinion, notifications that are ABOUT THIS SITE should always be shown—and, ideally, also taken notice of by the users; but if they do not take notice, well, then it’s just their bad luck
And if they see it but do not want to take notice, that would be a minor (rather minimal) annoyance that should be endured because it is about OGS itself, and not about anything outside or just about some games.
I think you misread my posting. I am not asking for a way to disable the site announcements, but for a way to close the announcement popup with the keyboard (after I have read it), because I have an accessibility issue with the mouse.
Another “obvious” way is something like: <tab><tab><tab><space>
(This doesn’t work either)
I mention this because that’s something that would be fixed just by changing the html for the close button from <i> (lol wat) to a <button>, and KB only users should be familiar with this type of navigation.
As in, in the UK, disability is a protected characteristic such that you shouldn’t be discriminated against because of it whether by government or private companies, as an employee or consumer. There are limitations to protection though mostly in that adjustments need to be “reasonable”, which I think is usually taken to mean “not too expensive”…
It’s not discrimination, because it’s not a given right to shop in a certain store.
But it is a right to be able to access your public tax office.
In Greece, newer buildings are now required to be accessible*, so in years forward that will not be an issue anymore anyway. I’m guessing it’s the same elsewhere, as in legislation is catching up and things are accesible from the start, not requiring adjustments.
However, for properties already in place the requirements have to be realistic.
*They might end up underwater now and then, but nominally they are at least accessible.
It’s not a right to shop in a certain store but its your right not to be treated less favourably by that store because of a protected characteristic.
In the UK if you open a shop which has a step to get in the front door and you could easily fit a ramp but choose not to on the basis that wheelchair users have no given right to shop in your store, you’d lose a discrimination case brought by a wheelchair user…
If a building was built in the 50s and has offices in it, like many buildings in downtown Athens, and there is no way to fit an elevator in there, should every company in there be made to shut down or move, the building demolished and a new building built in its place, so it could have an elevator? And at whose expense?
No, it would be more realistic to just choose a different office. I do not find this discriminatory.
In a utopia we wouldn’t be having this conversation, but in the real world some things are just not optimal and I find a demand to make someone else lose something (their office) for me to gain something (accessibilty) more on the side of entitlement.
For example, Ioannina has a lake. And a small island. With ferries of this kind.
Which obviously are not wheelchair-friendly. Of course a solution must be found, like special ferries to accomodate accessibilities. But making the ferry owner go out of business for that is vindictive, imho.
Public services request things that are mandatory, that’s why they have to provide the means.
For private businesses it’s quite difficult to sarisfy everyone. Ok, they build a ramp. They build a lined pavement. They use sound indications, light indications, braille, a compliant website.
I mean, why be satisfied with a ramp? Are other handicaps lesser? Obviously not. There are probably other measures that should be taken and other facilities provided that I am unaware of.
The bigger firms can do it, but not the smaller ones.
That’s exactly how it works. If it’s too difficult/expensive then you don’t have to do it. The right is limited by what is “reasonable”. That’s why I said
The point is the laws around accessibility apply just as much to private business as public bodies in the UK at least (and I suppose the EU/ECHR signatories since I guess that’s where we got these things from).
I’ve no idea about the US law but I suppose a British use unable to use the site due to undismissable announcements might have a case if it were reasonable for OGS to make a change to enable access. If it’s too expensive or not technically feasible then no change would need to be made.
Yes, it is essentially the same here in the U.S. If a business or venue is open to the public, then it is subject to the ADA. The standard is indeed a “reasonable accommodation,” but there is a phrase that precedes that which I can’t exactly recall, something like ‘least disruptive’ (that is not right, but it is the gist of the idea). In other words, the government can’t force you to install an elevator if a ramp takes care of the issue.
The ADA does in general apply to private companies offering services to the public e.g shops both physical and virtual such as amazon. Non-profits are included too, though a quick Google suggests having under 15 employees could be OGS’s get out of jail free card.
There’s a vast amount of non-compliance with it, though enforcement is selective. I recall the case of a US university which had an online video library without subtitles being told that was a violation so rather than add subtitles which was too much work for something they were doing as a free public service they just removed the service so now non-disabled and disabled get an equal nothing. U of California, Berkeley, to delete publicly available educational content
I doubt that’s the outcome the deaf people who complained wanted, but it’s an unfortunate though not unexpected outcome of strong legislation where “reasonable accommodation” is open to interpretation. These days technological progress of auto-captioning might help.
I don’t think they removed the content to be petty either.
It’s funny how US doesn’t fight for free health care or education though, but they so sue-ready for some videos. They should start several steps behind from where they are now and maybe it wouldn’t be so hard after all.
Exclude all the dirty poor with excruciating student loans as a principle, but yeah captions in some random videos are of the utmost importance.
Also youtube should be forced to do it in any case for all their content, they are a financial giant.