Jazajay
Active Member
Personally I would say any site.
1 in 7 ppl have something wrong with their eyes to some degree, so it's not limited to any certain group, as in if your site is a code based blog for writing firefox extensions for example you could write off coding for IE6 and IE7 as you know your users wont use it, however it's not as easy as that as everyone be it chavs to geeks can have the same problem with their eyes.
So I look at it as in that's 1 in 7 of my users regardless of the site.
Thing is it's only 1 simplified CSS sheet with certain areas made more bigger, certain background images removed and links clearer so it's only really adds 30hour development time on. I personally added a php test so if you follow links on the zoom version you still get the zoom version , on the next page, saves the user clicking it and then having to reclick to get the version they can read and use now that would take time on a already larger site and you would have to think of a better solution for an existing site that was big so it's best to be implemented from the start TBH.
My mother-in-law is all most blind without her glasses and she read that fine with out her glasses on, so it makes a huge difference, she had massive issues reading the graphical version and couldn't even read certain sections.
Now if one of those areas is an important call to action you've just lost business you know because they couldn't read it.
The thing about any version that's good for a minority is best practise is it is placed at the top in either the left or the right, otherwise how do they know you offer it?
Also you notice the link especially as it stands out, now IMO perfectly sighted users wont mind that, if I stuck it in the footer as the same colour as the other links and they have issues reading those links anyway then they wont see it or use and just leave, so it needs to be apparent. You could stick it in a capital A with a label saying font size: as that's becoming pretty much known for changing text to a larger font, then when they get the more easier version to read they might think wow was not expecting the effort nice as most sites don't offer it and TBH it's been something I've only been doing for 6months just taken me a while to update this site as I knew it needed a bit of work and I had paid work on so.....
The other best practise which I disagree with is to call the link high contrast, now I asked my mother in law, the lowest common denominator you need to design websites for,
if that was apparent what that would lead to and she had no idea, so I ran some terms passed her and that one was the one she would click on and TBH the most obvious so I'm going to personally change some old work, if I get permission. to match that in a bit as well.
1 in 7 ppl have something wrong with their eyes to some degree, so it's not limited to any certain group, as in if your site is a code based blog for writing firefox extensions for example you could write off coding for IE6 and IE7 as you know your users wont use it, however it's not as easy as that as everyone be it chavs to geeks can have the same problem with their eyes.
So I look at it as in that's 1 in 7 of my users regardless of the site.
Thing is it's only 1 simplified CSS sheet with certain areas made more bigger, certain background images removed and links clearer so it's only really adds 30hour development time on. I personally added a php test so if you follow links on the zoom version you still get the zoom version , on the next page, saves the user clicking it and then having to reclick to get the version they can read and use now that would take time on a already larger site and you would have to think of a better solution for an existing site that was big so it's best to be implemented from the start TBH.
My mother-in-law is all most blind without her glasses and she read that fine with out her glasses on, so it makes a huge difference, she had massive issues reading the graphical version and couldn't even read certain sections.
Now if one of those areas is an important call to action you've just lost business you know because they couldn't read it.
The thing about any version that's good for a minority is best practise is it is placed at the top in either the left or the right, otherwise how do they know you offer it?
Also you notice the link especially as it stands out, now IMO perfectly sighted users wont mind that, if I stuck it in the footer as the same colour as the other links and they have issues reading those links anyway then they wont see it or use and just leave, so it needs to be apparent. You could stick it in a capital A with a label saying font size: as that's becoming pretty much known for changing text to a larger font, then when they get the more easier version to read they might think wow was not expecting the effort nice as most sites don't offer it and TBH it's been something I've only been doing for 6months just taken me a while to update this site as I knew it needed a bit of work and I had paid work on so.....
The other best practise which I disagree with is to call the link high contrast, now I asked my mother in law, the lowest common denominator you need to design websites for,
if that was apparent what that would lead to and she had no idea, so I ran some terms passed her and that one was the one she would click on and TBH the most obvious so I'm going to personally change some old work, if I get permission. to match that in a bit as well.
