I think we need much more accessibility in websites, but we also need local, helpful AI to help people with disabilities. The world is not only websites and computers, and I guess the AI tools help immensely in interacting with the physical world.

It would be cool if somebody with disabilities would provide their perspective on this!

They share some real-world/practical example limitations and how they use AI as an accessibility tool.

The uncomfortable truth is that if we'd done a better job of making the web accessible, if we'd let the web realise its accessibility potential, far fewer people would be turning to AI to compensate now.

If you want to resist AI, make accessibility part of everything you do, every decision you make, every product you design and build. Remove the need for people to use AI to compensate, and remember, accessibility is resistance.

It's more likely that both are derived from ColorADD, but the idea is also simple enough, conceptually, that they all could have thought of it independently.

Getting it wrong: Red should be the Chevron as a metaphor for fire, Yellow should be Circle as a metaphor for Sun, Blue should be line as a metaphor for the sky + horizon.

The problem with requiring that your symbols are metaphors for things is that those things may not relate to the context in which you are using the symbols. At which point it just adds confusion to say that the yellow symbol represents the sun.

Additionally, people are never going to agree on what should represent what, as you yourself demonstrate; the author explicitly rejects that the blue symbol should be the metaphor for sky, yet for you it apparently felt like the best choice:

For blue, there are two obvious choices. The sky and the water. Water makes a more practical choice since the sky is inherently formless, and therefore quite difficult to represent symbolically.

I'm not a 100% sure it does, the choice of symbols looks a bit suspicious but it could be independently invented from ColorAdd idea like the one you linked. Symbolism is hard to standardise, maybe a chevron for blue has another meaning for the author

Edit: or more realistically, they had this problem and decided to solve it with AI and publish their solution for everyone without checking if the solution already existed and was partially copied by AI. That's the feeling I get from the repository at least

This looks like it's stealing someone else's work, and got it wrong at the same time.

Original work: https://petervelnl.blogspot.com/2021/11/vision-encoding-language.html

Getting it wrong: Red should be the Chevron as a metaphor for fire, Yellow should be Circle as a metaphor for Sun, Blue should be line as a metaphor for the sky + horizon.

In video games, colorblind mode often adds patterns to colors if they are used in, say, a color coded puzzle. These patterns are enough to distinguish between the colors (usually all that's needed tbh) but having a known set of icons could grant accessibility for more unique puzzles, like ones that involve wordplay, mixing paint/lights/drinks/etc.

Elegant and well-executed, but, and this is probably just my lack of imagination as someone who is not colour blind, I'm having trouble coming up with uses cases, and most of the examples on the site aren't really convincing to me.

Usually when we try to communicate something with colour, it's not the colour itself that matters, but the colour being distinguishable and/or the associations we have with it, which someone who is colour blind may not even have. Like, if you have a big, red emergency stop button, it being red isn't really what matters; it's red because it stands out and because we associate it with danger. Adding a dot isn't going to help with that, so to make it accessible to colour blind people, it needs additional features to make it stand out and instantly convey its purpose.

That said, I did bookmark the site, in case something comes up where it's the colour itself that's important.

the genius of simplicity! love it!

Oh! That worked much better on mobile via requesting desktop.

The readability definitely improved when using the buttons. I still ran into my usual difficulty parsing l and I, but the dbpqg part was almost non existent. So I think you got the spacing down right. As weird as it may seem, the font of the regular version has enough difference between i and l that those show clearer for me than in the dyslexic assist version, though the other letters are better in the assist.

Looking at it on my laptop is solid. The only thing I might suggest is labelling buttons instead of mouseover, or increasing the size so that they're a bit more obvious as buttons for us old farts that need reading glasses lol.

The colorblind contrast setting actually improved readability of the text for me as well. There's something about the background that ever so slightly distorts the lettering, though I have no clue why that is.

But, on the laptop, the letter readability was roughly the same, with the difference in screen quality making way more of a difference than anything about the fonts or spacing

Honestly, It's way better readability on either device (tablet and latop) than most sites.

It's fucking brilliant to see someone putting in the time to work on this :)

I made some changes to the mobile version and added the button there too... the numbers are probably confusing to read for everyone, I don't intend people to actually read them, although they are time stamps - I'm also testing accessibility for screenreaders so in the code the numbers, slashs and colons are ignored and the screenreader reads "// 202604212244 :" as "April 21, 2026 at 22:44" (I'm not actually expecting any blind person to find this site, I'm just practicing how to code a site with accessibility, thanks for the help!)

Ouch. Desktop version on mobile is bad, but not because of the font. The color scheme along with the background makes it rough to see the letters at all. The buttons are also hard to use. I don't have my laptop available right now, but ima send a note to myself to check it tomorrow

For real, someone putting in effort for accessibility is a really cool thing to see. If I brain fart and don't respond again tomorrow, feel free to dm me as reminder.

Ahhh, I'm on mobile. Lemme try to load it as desktop

Hi, thanks for checking it out, but did you try the buttons at the top? When you load the page it says what they are for, the one on the right turns on the "dyslexia-friendly" mode (there is no italics on it)

- Unless you are on mobile, I didn't work much on the mobile version yet.

I'd say it's about 90-95% readable without effort for me. The italics sections are a little harder, but that's not unusual for me to begin with. I don't think increased spacing beyond what you've got would improve anything, though a single increase in font size might.

The numbers are actually harder than the letters tbh. Again, not unusual for me, but I think a littlemore spacing would help there.

Just be aware that dyslexia can be a pain in the ass to be accessible for. It kinda defies attempts, and it expresses a little different between individuals, even with the same basic type. Imo, where you're at is a great starting place. Compared to something like the new York Times site, you're better for my eyes. What with the c/ for gift articles, I think it's a good baseline to compare to.

https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Atkinson+Hyperlegible?preview.script=Latn

I don't have enough dyslexia to help you ( it scrambles letter-order when I write, sometimes ), but wikipedia's got a page on that font, & it's engineered to disambiguate as clearly as possible.

_ /\ _

if anyone feels like inspecting the code https://pxhc.neocities.org/just-test-dont-visit-me-i-am-broken

Sure, it's laziness. Not lack of time or hardware to test with. No, laziness.

I have no good excuses, but alas, people are lazy and companies are cheap.