Overall this change is therefore, objectively speaking, an improvement in accessibility. I get it can make it inconvenient for some but this is not the same as accessible and yours was an argument about accessibility not convenience.
Sorry, but this is just factually and objectively incorrect. There are accessibility standards that exist out there and this site fails on almost every single one of them. If you've ever worked in web design since around 2010, you'd be aware that there are things like the UK's Equality Act 2010, the US's ADA, and similar EU legislation. Heck even if you've just run a company this is basic stuff of which you'd be aware. Testing for accessibility on the metrics governed by such laws, this website fails across hundreds of categories. So, if we want to be dispassionate and remove subjectivity out of the discussion we can do.
Even if we go with the absolute basic of tools to check how well this website was developed - the W3C web standard, this site throws up over 200 issues. In short then the site hasn't been correctly coded. These days I'm an amateur and not as fluent with web code as I used to be, but I have one personal website which I hand coded and it returns no errors when checking for compliance with W3C standards.
Such standards exist for a reason, and if we're going to talk accessibility the benefit of ensuring your website meets W3C standards is that developers of accessibility tools have a fighting chance in making sure those tools actually work on websites. With so many errors on just the landing page of this site, you can bet that page by page there will be even more. As such, there is highly likely a standard that was not met upon which accessibility tools rely.
I could continue, but hopefully I've made the point. If you really want to talk accessibility, you gotta know what you're talking about. And you clearly don't, because no-one who has knowledge of accessibility standards could come to the conclusion you did.
One caveat here though folks is to recognise that even accessibility standards aren't perfect. They are by nature a 'best fit' solution. This is something I do recognise and add that I know that some accessibility standards flat out don't work for everyone. That sucks, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to know where to even begin. Obviously no two sets of needs are the same, so as best I understand what standards do exist tend to discriminate because they have to work for as many people as possible, even if the cost is making things less accessible for an overall smaller number.
Overall this change is therefore, objectively speaking, an improvement in accessibility. I get it can make it inconvenient for some but this is not the same as accessible and yours was an argument about accessibility not convenience.
Sorry, but this is just factually and objectively incorrect. There are accessibility standards that exist out there and this site fails on almost every single one of them. If you've ever worked in web design since around 2010, you'd be aware that there are things like the UK's Equality Act 2010, the US's ADA, and similar EU legislation. Heck even if you've just run a company this is basic stuff of which you'd be aware. Testing for accessibility on the metrics governed by such laws, this website fails across hundreds of categories. So, if we want to be dispassionate and remove subjectivity out of the discussion we can do.
Even if we go with the absolute basic of tools to check how well this website was developed - the W3C web standard, this site throws up over 200 issues. In short then the site hasn't been correctly coded. These days I'm an amateur and not as fluent with web code as I used to be, but I have one personal website which I hand coded and it returns no errors when checking for compliance with W3C standards.
Such standards exist for a reason, and if we're going to talk accessibility the benefit of ensuring your website meets W3C standards is that developers of accessibility tools have a fighting chance in making sure those tools actually work on websites. With so many errors on just the landing page of this site, you can bet that page by page there will be even more. As such, there is highly likely a standard that was not met upon which accessibility tools rely.
I could continue, but hopefully I've made the point. If you really want to talk accessibility, you gotta know what you're talking about. And you clearly don't, because no-one who has knowledge of accessibility standards could come to the conclusion you did.
One caveat here though folks is to recognise that even accessibility standards aren't perfect. They are by nature a 'best fit' solution. This is something I do recognise and add that I know that some accessibility standards flat out don't work for everyone. That sucks, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to know where to even begin. Obviously no two sets of needs are the same, so as best I understand what standards do exist tend to discriminate because they have to work for as many people as possible, even if the cost is making things less accessible for an overall smaller number.
With all due respect your response is moving goalposts and does not address my post at all. I am not discussing the accessibilities issues or standards for the whole site - my only point is that click-menu is generally more accessible than hover-menu. Something you didn't address at all.
You want a response more about official standards? Sure. Let's do that. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Success Criterion 1.4.13 exists because hover-triggered menus and content that can popup are difficult to interact with and the way D&D Beyond had their hover-menu set up actually fails this criteria, which is why click-menu is generally preferable for large content appearance. Many accessible design patterns therefore prefer explicit activation (click or keyboard focus) instead of automatic hover triggers. The WCAG actually and specifically warn that content triggered on hover can cause accessibility problems.
Not only is it an issue for people with hand tremors but hover menus and content are a lot more difficult to work accessibility programs, apps and similar assistive tech while click-menus are a lot easier, also easier to use with apps that can add keyboard navigation to menus and links (using keyboard to activate links/content without needing mouse/trackpad). Such keyboard nav apps are also useful for people without physical problems as it can make navigation faster - also useful for site devs, and I would know because I've used them. I've done website design and development from 1995 to 2018 and in college did extra courses on web design accessibility as well as the psychology of web design. 👍
I am not disputing this website has accessibility problems in general, which is why I made no actual mention of those. I am only talking about one specific point - the click/hover of the menu - and I do know what I'm talking about in regards to that point (which you never addressed, by the way), thanks to over two decades of experience and the very standards you quote.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Every function will now need to be searched for through multiple "drop down" menus instead of cleanly being layed out in easy to understand tabs like before. It's counterintuitive and overly complicated! NOT what you want while running a game!
In this regard, I think the most damage was already done in the previous update where they removed the direct links to class-specific pages and spell lists.
So the real question, having difficulty getting to owned items, disapearing menus base on screen resolution or orientation, having the worst time trying to actually get my players to their resources... and 5 pages of complaints and I do not see any action from D&D beyond.
beloved game being destroyed before our eyes is gross, makes us loyalsts feel like we wasted our money and time.
who is even listening to us? because it's not D&D beyond, it's creators, hasbro..... and most of the folks here are just fighting with eachother about how bad it is.
So the real question, having difficulty getting to owned items, disapearing menus base on screen resolution or orientation, having the worst time trying to actually get my players to their resources... and 5 pages of complaints and I do not see any action from D&D beyond.
beloved game being destroyed before our eyes is gross, makes us loyalsts feel like we wasted our money and time.
who is even listening to us? because it's not D&D beyond, it's creators, hasbro..... and most of the folks here are just fighting with eachother about how bad it is.
5 pages of complaints on 1 thread.
There is a whole other thread with 5 pages of compliments and improvement ideas.
This sentiment it a little obtuse. You can find your owned items faster using the new library than you could with the old layout. What exactly are you having trouble with when it comes to getting your players their resources they need? Having constructive criticism will be listened to. Saying that you hate it or the game is "being destroyed" but a different site navigation (a site navigation that I personally find more convenient than the old one) is all that took place is not helping
Layout the exact issues and maybe, like in the other thread DDB staff will see it at acknowledge it.
And people aren't fighting about how bad it is. Some people are gripping over changes they hate, and people are responding about how they like it or find it easier.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry, but this is just factually and objectively incorrect. There are accessibility standards that exist out there and this site fails on almost every single one of them. If you've ever worked in web design since around 2010, you'd be aware that there are things like the UK's Equality Act 2010, the US's ADA, and similar EU legislation. Heck even if you've just run a company this is basic stuff of which you'd be aware. Testing for accessibility on the metrics governed by such laws, this website fails across hundreds of categories. So, if we want to be dispassionate and remove subjectivity out of the discussion we can do.
Even if we go with the absolute basic of tools to check how well this website was developed - the W3C web standard, this site throws up over 200 issues. In short then the site hasn't been correctly coded. These days I'm an amateur and not as fluent with web code as I used to be, but I have one personal website which I hand coded and it returns no errors when checking for compliance with W3C standards.
Such standards exist for a reason, and if we're going to talk accessibility the benefit of ensuring your website meets W3C standards is that developers of accessibility tools have a fighting chance in making sure those tools actually work on websites. With so many errors on just the landing page of this site, you can bet that page by page there will be even more. As such, there is highly likely a standard that was not met upon which accessibility tools rely.
I could continue, but hopefully I've made the point. If you really want to talk accessibility, you gotta know what you're talking about. And you clearly don't, because no-one who has knowledge of accessibility standards could come to the conclusion you did.
One caveat here though folks is to recognise that even accessibility standards aren't perfect. They are by nature a 'best fit' solution. This is something I do recognise and add that I know that some accessibility standards flat out don't work for everyone. That sucks, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to know where to even begin. Obviously no two sets of needs are the same, so as best I understand what standards do exist tend to discriminate because they have to work for as many people as possible, even if the cost is making things less accessible for an overall smaller number.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
With all due respect your response is moving goalposts and does not address my post at all. I am not discussing the accessibilities issues or standards for the whole site - my only point is that click-menu is generally more accessible than hover-menu. Something you didn't address at all.
You want a response more about official standards? Sure. Let's do that. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Success Criterion 1.4.13 exists because hover-triggered menus and content that can popup are difficult to interact with and the way D&D Beyond had their hover-menu set up actually fails this criteria, which is why click-menu is generally preferable for large content appearance. Many accessible design patterns therefore prefer explicit activation (click or keyboard focus) instead of automatic hover triggers. The WCAG actually and specifically warn that content triggered on hover can cause accessibility problems.
Not only is it an issue for people with hand tremors but hover menus and content are a lot more difficult to work accessibility programs, apps and similar assistive tech while click-menus are a lot easier, also easier to use with apps that can add keyboard navigation to menus and links (using keyboard to activate links/content without needing mouse/trackpad). Such keyboard nav apps are also useful for people without physical problems as it can make navigation faster - also useful for site devs, and I would know because I've used them. I've done website design and development from 1995 to 2018 and in college did extra courses on web design accessibility as well as the psychology of web design. 👍
I am not disputing this website has accessibility problems in general, which is why I made no actual mention of those. I am only talking about one specific point - the click/hover of the menu - and I do know what I'm talking about in regards to that point (which you never addressed, by the way), thanks to over two decades of experience and the very standards you quote.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
In this regard, I think the most damage was already done in the previous update where they removed the direct links to class-specific pages and spell lists.
So the real question, having difficulty getting to owned items, disapearing menus base on screen resolution or orientation, having the worst time trying to actually get my players to their resources... and 5 pages of complaints and I do not see any action from D&D beyond.
beloved game being destroyed before our eyes is gross, makes us loyalsts feel like we wasted our money and time.
who is even listening to us? because it's not D&D beyond, it's creators, hasbro..... and most of the folks here are just fighting with eachother about how bad it is.
5 pages of complaints on 1 thread.
There is a whole other thread with 5 pages of compliments and improvement ideas.
This sentiment it a little obtuse. You can find your owned items faster using the new library than you could with the old layout. What exactly are you having trouble with when it comes to getting your players their resources they need? Having constructive criticism will be listened to. Saying that you hate it or the game is "being destroyed" but a different site navigation (a site navigation that I personally find more convenient than the old one) is all that took place is not helping
Layout the exact issues and maybe, like in the other thread DDB staff will see it at acknowledge it.
And people aren't fighting about how bad it is. Some people are gripping over changes they hate, and people are responding about how they like it or find it easier.