Out of curiosity for all the front-end web developers, do you normally test to make sure that your websites are accessible to the blind, color-blind etc.. ? (and i'm not just talking about "alt" attributes)

I've been working as a web developer for over 5 years now at several different companies with close to 100 websites and not a single one seemed to have even considered it. The first time it came up was because a client REQUIRED conformance level AA or higher (I had no idea this was even a thing). In my opinion, ensuring that your website is at least somewhat accessible should be an essential step in every project.

If anyone's looking for some tools to make testing easier you can check these out:
- axe - Web Accessibility Testing (chrome extension)
- Accessibility Insights for Web (chrome extension)

Nope. Never.

I would like to but every project is a shit show to get barely working crap out the door, let alone accessibility.

Currently working on front end projects that will be public facing, for one ot the large banks, so yes, it is taken very seriously. The site cannot go live if QA do not sign off on the accessibility.

Generally? Accessibility is not considered by web devs unless they actually have to deal with it.

But once you start doing it, it's worth the extra effort:

I generally don't give it a second thought. Like, I'll do basic stuff like add alt attributes but I don't go out of my way to add accessibility

After I learn a bit more about the topic and the difficulties people experience using non accessible websites I made it my goal to build every feature with accessibility first in mind and I’m pushing my company in that direction so that every dev at least acknowledge while developing. It also helps building a website that make sense structurally and semantically which in turn helps SEO

If it is in the requirements.

I actually thought about this before and I came to probably an unpopular opinion, maybe even a bit ignorant? I'm not sure yet but:

I don't think it should be considered for *every* project as a default. It feels that if we conform to all the possible accessibility issue to cover as many people with issues as possible, we're strongly limiting what we can create for the average person without issues. You're essentially limited to high contrast, big fonted, limited colored websites which sure, you can make nice designs with, but there's only so many, and wouldn't it be a shame to completely stop using some colors just because some people can't see them well with others?

so at the very least I don't think it should be the default for every project, HOWEVER... I do believe we should invest into it being at least *optional*... Instead of just having light/dark modes, we should add accessibility modes or similar... (but ofc that then means additional dev time that no one pays for)

Just to clarify. I'm not a Frontend developer nor a designer. I have some experience with graphics design but that's minimal and far apart, so maybe half my assumptions are wrong.

just sayin' that optional is better than forced or missing pretty much everytime

Yes.

@Hazarth I'd say your opinion is more popular than you think. If an interface or website was designed in a way that alienates anyone who isn't 20/20 vision with mouse access and in the age-range of 18-40, no one's going to put the designer in handcuffs but I'd consider that a bad user experience.

Following all guidelines 100% of the time is unrealistic for most projects. But I'd say there's a minimum that should be followed. Even if it doesn't make your site/app the most accessible thing in the world, at least it won't be completely unusable!

The current state is just retarded.
Why should every webdev have to for example not reorder elements with CSS grid for accessibility reasons?

The right solution would be to make a screenreader that evaluates CSS.
And contrast? Just make an extension that turns it up. But everyone spending hours on accessibility, being restricted in design choices - just to spare the colorblind from installing an extension? That's very backwards.