My experience has been that the thought process involved in creating accessible designs results in systems that are easier to use for people without disabilities. For example, curb cuts were designed to benefit people in wheelchairs, but they make life easier for delivery people with hand trucks, people with strollers, etc.
It's the same for UX design. Features designed to increase accessibility, such as better contrast, reasonably large fonts, etc. seem to make software more usable period.
Sometimes, but not always. While I'm a fan of larger fonts and click targets, a lot of people like to have these thugs be a lot smaller so they can have more information-dense screens.
…which itself is an accessibility issue; if you have good eyes but rotten limbs, you'll want to increase the information density of your screens so you have to scroll as little as possible. Most voice recognition systems accept one or more of:
- space
- page down
- scroll down one page
Now imagine needing to say that every time you want to page down; you'd turn the font size down as low as possible, sit closer to your monitor, and turn it 90° so it's taller than it is wider.
It's nice when accessible designs provide benefits to people who don't _need_ them, but sometimes a design that's better for people with one class of disabilities will end up being a worse design for normal people or differently disabled people.
I love this. Nothing really groundbreaking here, but it's still true from my experience.
A few weeks ago, I went to a hackathon for domestic violence. It was.. interesting. Lots of cool designs and products came out of it, but none of them actually had any interest in designing a problem that had a broad and proper enough solution. The biggest problem? Everyone created a smartphone app except for mine and two others'.
One of the lawyers who hosted the event and I had a conversation about this and agreed - this is the class of problem that prevents so many people from getting the help they need. They're simply aren't represented because they don't have the luxury of having a smart phone or constant internet access.
(mildly shameful plug) - My submission [0] was a map of all DV centers, as nothing like that exists or even close. It was made by scraping domesticshelters.com's center names and plugging it into a geocode service. domesticshelters' owner refuses to use it because of the privacy issues of an abuser being able to find a shelter just as easily as the abused - which is easily solved by mapping to a city center as my code does with an attached phone number. I received last place, with 'honorable mention'.
Point is, very few in tech really ever want to take on these hard issues since they're not fun, or they're not easy, or they involve social interaction with those they're helping. It's sad.
To be fair, couldn't that just be because generic mobile apps are seen as a way to get rich quick?
Okay, maybe you'd expect a bit more from someone attending a hackathon, but from my experiences, every time I mention the word 'startup', someone immediately suggests or asks about a mobile app.
For them, the only use of tech is mobile app that somehow blows up like Uber. It might be less about whether it's fun or easy or involve social interaction and more about whether the founder can see the dollar signs in his/her eyes.
Yes, I think that's exactly the reason. Which is also why I'm a critic of SV.
There definitely are great things that come out of the ability to quickly identify and create helpful apps/sites, but these days I'm wondering if the nuance of those who needs help is far more nuanced than app developers think. Or that maybe they they're aware, but they think "good enough" will inspire others to create their own, better/helpful service.
In my personal experience again, the problem happens when the need for wages and time (jobs, unemployment, family, health, etc etc etc,..., etc) completely de-mantles that motivation. It's these sorts of things that make basic income seem to make sense.. as in, if addressing socioeconomic nuance is solvable only time and motivation, the only limiting factor is money on an individual level.
My cynic side wants to call this "wage slavery", despite fucking hating that phrase.
---
For what it's worth, the hackathon winners created an app for reporting DV by hiding it as a calculator with a passcode. It was neat, but after having dated someone VERY technical and someone who's NOT technical, these sorts of things would fall flat on their face. It's surprising how far their technical thoroughness went in both cases.
non-tech girl: "My friend told me how to look at DNS cache and you were clearly looking at porn earlier."
tech-girl: "I sniffed my ex's AIM traffic to find out he was cheating. Don't cheat on me."
>To be fair, couldn't that just be because generic mobile apps are seen as a way to get rich quick?
In general yes, but as in the parent's case, this also happens when money is not the end target: lots of devs will just go and design a mobile app first, without really thinking it.
I think your expectations are too high. What else are you expecting other than a website or mobile app? This is the hackathon format: the end product is software, so people are going to gravitate to mobile apps, which many believe to be more ubiquitously accessible.
Nobody believes the true solution (or biggest thing that needs to be done) to domestic violence is a pure technology solution, so all you're going to see in a domestic violence hackathon are small software products that chip away at the problem.
It's not sad. Maybe (shocker) there isn't a lot that tech can do to solve domestic violence.
I think your expectations are too high. What else are you expecting other than a website or mobile app?
In a way, you just reinforced his point.
Maybe (shocker) there isn't a lot that tech can do to solve domestic violence.
At the core, most human violence is about some form of pain, fear, or resource shortfall. (Or perception of such.) There is much that tech can do about this, if one is willing to look beyond just the creation of an app. "Ecosystem" creation might well be capable of more than "just an app."
Your first statement is a non sequitur. You also neglected to provide any examples of where tech is the best/necessary solution for solving domestic violence.
Your second statement is a non sequitur. I never said tech is a best or necessary solution. However, tech can be used to reduce fear or alleviate resource scarcity.
My first statement notes that the gp comment basically says they're looking where it's easiest to look, which is the criticism they're also responding to.
You haven't detailed any evidence showing why and to what degree products that broadly and vaguely affecting fear/pain/resource scarcity (resource scarcity is a dubious assertion in of itself - employee productivity growth in America has slowed - so much for the tech revolution) would affect domestic violence. Even if we take your assertion as "common sense," it could very well be that for every 10% change in resource scarcity, you have a 0.001% change in domestic violence.
Not to mention it is questionable whether tech is actually able to make a big dent in fear/pain of the human condition in the short term, absent some wild singulatarian fantasy.
You haven't detailed any evidence showing why and to what degree products that broadly and vaguely affecting fear/pain/resource scarcity
Ok, if that's your point -- kind of vacuous. That resource scarcity is one of the big underlying causes of violence is well acknowledged in psychological, sociological, and historical fields. Is there any evidence that products can affect resource scarcity? Certainly.
Even if we take your assertion as "common sense," it could very well be that for every 10% change in resource scarcity, you have a 0.001% change in domestic violence.
Oh, for Finn's sake! Just Google "study wealth rates of domestic violence." Are you sure you're thinking clearly here in command of the evidence? Your sentence above would indicate you're not in command of the facts. I'm just pointing out a possible avenue of lateral thinking about this problem, citing a well known underlying mechanism from multiple fields of study. What's your point, exactly?
The end result isn't necessarily software - why does it have to be? For example, data collection/structuring is something that a lot of programmers are very interested in and can be used for others' work. It might end up on a website, but that's just a dissemination platform at that point.
Lots of people truly want to help out. But when an app that doesn't solve anything isn't on, or will ever be on, any app store is paraded as an amazing thing in the news, all you'll end up with a thousand mediocre "helpful" apps and a wasted pool of creativity and motivation. That, and a lot of interested folks who're now jaded because the things they make "aren't cool". Mild projection there ;).
Edit to add on expectations: motivation and expectation are often a pair. By having high expectations for yourself and others, you tend to push yourself beyond what you normally would think is possible. This goes for everything, but especially with tech, where "That'd take a thousand people!" only takes one. The motivation factor? It's fun.
I consider data collection to be part of software, so even that I don't think will do much to solve domestic violence.
Otherwise, you haven't really shown why we need to have higher expectations, other than some vague statement about pushing people. You're just going to get bigger websites / mobile apps / data science analyses, if you set expectations higher.
What I'm suggesting is that there are many, many ways to untie gordian knots.
Building bigger * is already happening - it's probably why your expectations are so low! Solving enormous social problems using complexity is a meme that needs to die - this is where bureaucracies and the like come from. Social situations are just too complex to write a complex system that addresses everything. Simple answers to complex problems that come close to the nuance as possible because of their "mediocreness" (think unix, x86, etc). My high expectations are in others' ability to find those simple "do one thing and do it well" solutions together.
Ultimately it doesn't. They're effectively useless.
What does help is getting a small group together to simply solve a small problem over time. Complete one project that should have a small improvement within a city, then do another, then do another. It's something that takes a lot of time, is unbearably iterative, but if enough folks do it, then it has large impact.
Since you keep calling me vague, I'll give you an example..
I'm working with a small group in trying to force the city of Chicago to validate parking tickets before they write them. We're very, very slowly finding all invalid parking tickets with the intention of raising a class action lawsuit. It's been surprisingly challenging, but we think we'll be able to do it.
The reason I try to be vague on these things is so that others can dive down the rabbit hole at whatever pace they want to and fix whatever they want in their own way. By telling someone what to do, you inhibit their creativity for discovery and to some level, their confidence. That rabbit hole just leads towards some very, very interesting things that intellectual constraints would fuck over. For example, this ticketing project landed me in Rahm's competitor's office and handing them my analysis for their campaign. After zero contact from them and a lot in between, this led (in a roundabout way) to a lawsuit against the mayor of Chicago for his phone records, which happens in April. At that point, it'll be almost a year and 5 months since the initial FOIA request.
For what it's worth, smartphones can be had for like $40, and eg Freedompop now has GSM sims with 700MB of month of free data. The time/effort required for phone-less solutions to be developed and adopted might be less than the time/effort to get basic computation and connectivity to people who need them.
(Disclaimers: I do agree with the ultimate point of the article, and your take as well. And I don't even like "smart phones" or assumptions of Internet connectivity for that matter. But those constants, they are a-changin')
I'm sorry dude but I don't want disabled people working for me. I want to hire and work with people who aren't disabled. Would you hire a mentally retarded person? Exactly. Also if you are old -- get the fuck out of the valley. Go move to someplace where it gets cold in the winter. It'll help your joints.
Yeah, I'm only a couple years off from forty and I'm pretty sure my vision is not nearly fifty percent dimmer than twenty years ago. Certainly my glasses prescription has changed slightly, but that is more about redirecting the light.
Having 50% less light getting to the retina is not necessarily that it looks 50% dimmer subjectively.
E.g. it's not like having a dimmer for your room lights at 100% and 50%.
I guess it's more like a 1-stop difference in photography (where again, half as much light hits the film/sensor from one stop to the next).
Here's an example with half the 50% less light hitting the sensor between the two pictures. It's not as dramatic as you expect (except in the "depth of field", e.g. how focused stuff is):
The abstract of this paper offers a data point that is consistent with the claim. For the purposes of this discussion, it is safe to say that the claim is not too far off.
On the topic of physical disabilities in particular (social and intellectual challenges are more tricky) - I think we need better ways of simulating disability for able-bodied folks, and more willingness to have people use those tools.
This can be as simple as a tool on your desktop that limits the color output of your machine (in various types of color blindness), or blurs the screen to particular partially sighted simulations. Not in-app, but general. And we need to enforce their use as part of development.
Physically, there are companies that will train staff by putting them in wheelchairs and asking them to navigate their space. How welcoming is it for a wheelchair user? Can they get through the pull to open door? Can they get into the bathroom to get as far as the accessible stall? As a wheelchair user myself, I often get the feedback that people just didn't realise how difficult things were in their ADA compliant buildings, because nobody had tested it out.
We test things on multiple devices, with multiple sets of capabilities, but we don't do a good job of testing as users with multiple sets of capabilities.
It's pretty easy to approximate the experience of a totally blind user if you use a Mac. Just turn off your monitor or put on a blindfold, then press Command+F5 to enable VoiceOver. On iOS, you can find VoiceOver in Settings -> General -> Accessibility. For Android, there's TalkBack. Windows has a built-in screen reader called Narrator, but it's still limited enough that practically nobody uses it as their primary screen reader, so instead I'd recommend NVDA (http://www.nvaccess.org/). For desktop Linux, there's Orca.
There's a danger, though, that a sighted person using a screen reader for a short time will come away with misguided ideas about what is practical for a blind person that uses these tools day in and day out. For example, see this thread:
Yes, the same is definitely true of wheelchair use - you get the problems without the hard-won tactics for coping. I'm going to navigate a space better than you in a chair, mostly. Simulation is not perfect, but lack of simulation- just thinking hard - obviously doesn't work, to anyone who's rolled around shaking their heads at 'best practice'.
Still, having a worse-case experience is not necessarily a bad thing. There are people who are newly blind, people who are newly disabled, people who are newly incapacitated.
It's really hard to empathise with some of the issues until you can experience. I never realised the issues aging eyesight causes - until I aged! I'm long sighted. I can mostly still see fine, except my life long trick of moving things to arm's length no longer works - my arms aren't long enough any more. Or the distance is now such that the tiny text of the instructions or ingredients is now too small.
Aging sucks :)
I imagine the day-to-day frustrations are very different for someone with short sight, macular degeneration or the multitude of other eyesight disorders.
Android is terrible at being accessible - I can change font sizes, or zoom the website, but crucial elements don't. Plenty of apps "know best". Or there is some limit of zooming the website or its font. Or you zoom and it completely screws up the columns. In ten or fifteen years, perhaps less, Android will be useless to me. I would need a magnifying glass to use a phone! It's not an issue now, but I can clearly see where it will be, in my forseeable future.
I'm a big fan of Rawls' Veil and use it in my own thinking about what is just.
I do want to add, though: "No one complains that typefaces set at 20px are too big to read." - I do, very often, when reading on my phone. If the font is so big that only three or four words fit on a line, I cannot read the paragraph - the vertical scrolling & concentration required is too fatiguing. I'd say it happens on 10-20% of mobile sites today, and it's an increasing proportion. I strongly prefer tiny text with very little scrolling to the opposite. Browser text size preference don't help much; the setting often doesn't have any effect.
This site is fine on mobile (for me), though. And I fully agree with the message, with my caveat.
I think this isn't fair to Rawls. If you had to design the internet today, you would probably design the internet just as it is today. Not because you want to exclude 'people that are 80 and have really bad vision', but because even if you made every page have high contrast and an 60pt font, there are almost no 80 year olds on the internet compared to 20 year olds, and you have to cater to your actual audience, not your 'in some universe where old people were on the internet what would be the best way to make it easy for them' universe.
This isn't really so crazy, and it's not some kind of ableist ageist blind spot that content creators have. There is no demand for 60pt fonts, the people that need them, who are extremely few, are more able to adapt the world to their needs than the world is able to adapt itself. Or maybe their needs are totally missed, but you can say that about literally any tiny group.
36 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 83.8 ms ] threadIt's the same for UX design. Features designed to increase accessibility, such as better contrast, reasonably large fonts, etc. seem to make software more usable period.
…which itself is an accessibility issue; if you have good eyes but rotten limbs, you'll want to increase the information density of your screens so you have to scroll as little as possible. Most voice recognition systems accept one or more of:
- space
- page down
- scroll down one page
Now imagine needing to say that every time you want to page down; you'd turn the font size down as low as possible, sit closer to your monitor, and turn it 90° so it's taller than it is wider.
It's nice when accessible designs provide benefits to people who don't _need_ them, but sometimes a design that's better for people with one class of disabilities will end up being a worse design for normal people or differently disabled people.
A few weeks ago, I went to a hackathon for domestic violence. It was.. interesting. Lots of cool designs and products came out of it, but none of them actually had any interest in designing a problem that had a broad and proper enough solution. The biggest problem? Everyone created a smartphone app except for mine and two others'.
One of the lawyers who hosted the event and I had a conversation about this and agreed - this is the class of problem that prevents so many people from getting the help they need. They're simply aren't represented because they don't have the luxury of having a smart phone or constant internet access.
(mildly shameful plug) - My submission [0] was a map of all DV centers, as nothing like that exists or even close. It was made by scraping domesticshelters.com's center names and plugging it into a geocode service. domesticshelters' owner refuses to use it because of the privacy issues of an abuser being able to find a shelter just as easily as the abused - which is easily solved by mapping to a city center as my code does with an attached phone number. I received last place, with 'honorable mention'.
Point is, very few in tech really ever want to take on these hard issues since they're not fun, or they're not easy, or they involve social interaction with those they're helping. It's sad.
red-bin.github.io [0]
Okay, maybe you'd expect a bit more from someone attending a hackathon, but from my experiences, every time I mention the word 'startup', someone immediately suggests or asks about a mobile app.
For them, the only use of tech is mobile app that somehow blows up like Uber. It might be less about whether it's fun or easy or involve social interaction and more about whether the founder can see the dollar signs in his/her eyes.
There definitely are great things that come out of the ability to quickly identify and create helpful apps/sites, but these days I'm wondering if the nuance of those who needs help is far more nuanced than app developers think. Or that maybe they they're aware, but they think "good enough" will inspire others to create their own, better/helpful service.
In my personal experience again, the problem happens when the need for wages and time (jobs, unemployment, family, health, etc etc etc,..., etc) completely de-mantles that motivation. It's these sorts of things that make basic income seem to make sense.. as in, if addressing socioeconomic nuance is solvable only time and motivation, the only limiting factor is money on an individual level.
My cynic side wants to call this "wage slavery", despite fucking hating that phrase.
--- For what it's worth, the hackathon winners created an app for reporting DV by hiding it as a calculator with a passcode. It was neat, but after having dated someone VERY technical and someone who's NOT technical, these sorts of things would fall flat on their face. It's surprising how far their technical thoroughness went in both cases.
non-tech girl: "My friend told me how to look at DNS cache and you were clearly looking at porn earlier."
tech-girl: "I sniffed my ex's AIM traffic to find out he was cheating. Don't cheat on me."
In general yes, but as in the parent's case, this also happens when money is not the end target: lots of devs will just go and design a mobile app first, without really thinking it.
Nobody believes the true solution (or biggest thing that needs to be done) to domestic violence is a pure technology solution, so all you're going to see in a domestic violence hackathon are small software products that chip away at the problem.
It's not sad. Maybe (shocker) there isn't a lot that tech can do to solve domestic violence.
In a way, you just reinforced his point.
Maybe (shocker) there isn't a lot that tech can do to solve domestic violence.
At the core, most human violence is about some form of pain, fear, or resource shortfall. (Or perception of such.) There is much that tech can do about this, if one is willing to look beyond just the creation of an app. "Ecosystem" creation might well be capable of more than "just an app."
My first statement notes that the gp comment basically says they're looking where it's easiest to look, which is the criticism they're also responding to.
Not to mention it is questionable whether tech is actually able to make a big dent in fear/pain of the human condition in the short term, absent some wild singulatarian fantasy.
Ok, if that's your point -- kind of vacuous. That resource scarcity is one of the big underlying causes of violence is well acknowledged in psychological, sociological, and historical fields. Is there any evidence that products can affect resource scarcity? Certainly.
Even if we take your assertion as "common sense," it could very well be that for every 10% change in resource scarcity, you have a 0.001% change in domestic violence.
Oh, for Finn's sake! Just Google "study wealth rates of domestic violence." Are you sure you're thinking clearly here in command of the evidence? Your sentence above would indicate you're not in command of the facts. I'm just pointing out a possible avenue of lateral thinking about this problem, citing a well known underlying mechanism from multiple fields of study. What's your point, exactly?
The end result isn't necessarily software - why does it have to be? For example, data collection/structuring is something that a lot of programmers are very interested in and can be used for others' work. It might end up on a website, but that's just a dissemination platform at that point.
Lots of people truly want to help out. But when an app that doesn't solve anything isn't on, or will ever be on, any app store is paraded as an amazing thing in the news, all you'll end up with a thousand mediocre "helpful" apps and a wasted pool of creativity and motivation. That, and a lot of interested folks who're now jaded because the things they make "aren't cool". Mild projection there ;).
Edit to add on expectations: motivation and expectation are often a pair. By having high expectations for yourself and others, you tend to push yourself beyond what you normally would think is possible. This goes for everything, but especially with tech, where "That'd take a thousand people!" only takes one. The motivation factor? It's fun.
Otherwise, you haven't really shown why we need to have higher expectations, other than some vague statement about pushing people. You're just going to get bigger websites / mobile apps / data science analyses, if you set expectations higher.
Building bigger * is already happening - it's probably why your expectations are so low! Solving enormous social problems using complexity is a meme that needs to die - this is where bureaucracies and the like come from. Social situations are just too complex to write a complex system that addresses everything. Simple answers to complex problems that come close to the nuance as possible because of their "mediocreness" (think unix, x86, etc). My high expectations are in others' ability to find those simple "do one thing and do it well" solutions together.
What does help is getting a small group together to simply solve a small problem over time. Complete one project that should have a small improvement within a city, then do another, then do another. It's something that takes a lot of time, is unbearably iterative, but if enough folks do it, then it has large impact.
Since you keep calling me vague, I'll give you an example..
I'm working with a small group in trying to force the city of Chicago to validate parking tickets before they write them. We're very, very slowly finding all invalid parking tickets with the intention of raising a class action lawsuit. It's been surprisingly challenging, but we think we'll be able to do it.
The reason I try to be vague on these things is so that others can dive down the rabbit hole at whatever pace they want to and fix whatever they want in their own way. By telling someone what to do, you inhibit their creativity for discovery and to some level, their confidence. That rabbit hole just leads towards some very, very interesting things that intellectual constraints would fuck over. For example, this ticketing project landed me in Rahm's competitor's office and handing them my analysis for their campaign. After zero contact from them and a lot in between, this led (in a roundabout way) to a lawsuit against the mayor of Chicago for his phone records, which happens in April. At that point, it'll be almost a year and 5 months since the initial FOIA request.
I normally hate TED talks, but this is what got me started. It sums up decently well what kind of attitude and thought process is needed: https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_liu_why_ordinary_people_need_...
(Disclaimers: I do agree with the ultimate point of the article, and your take as well. And I don't even like "smart phones" or assumptions of Internet connectivity for that matter. But those constants, they are a-changin')
E.g. it's not like having a dimmer for your room lights at 100% and 50%.
I guess it's more like a 1-stop difference in photography (where again, half as much light hits the film/sensor from one stop to the next).
Here's an example with half the 50% less light hitting the sensor between the two pictures. It's not as dramatic as you expect (except in the "depth of field", e.g. how focused stuff is):
http://www.adammoroz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Untitled...
The abstract of this paper offers a data point that is consistent with the claim. For the purposes of this discussion, it is safe to say that the claim is not too far off.
It might sound too much of a difference, but it's not that apparent (you can try changing an f-stop on a camera for comparison).
(Probably there's some logarithmic sensing involved).
This can be as simple as a tool on your desktop that limits the color output of your machine (in various types of color blindness), or blurs the screen to particular partially sighted simulations. Not in-app, but general. And we need to enforce their use as part of development.
Physically, there are companies that will train staff by putting them in wheelchairs and asking them to navigate their space. How welcoming is it for a wheelchair user? Can they get through the pull to open door? Can they get into the bathroom to get as far as the accessible stall? As a wheelchair user myself, I often get the feedback that people just didn't realise how difficult things were in their ADA compliant buildings, because nobody had tested it out.
We test things on multiple devices, with multiple sets of capabilities, but we don't do a good job of testing as users with multiple sets of capabilities.
There's a danger, though, that a sighted person using a screen reader for a short time will come away with misguided ideas about what is practical for a blind person that uses these tools day in and day out. For example, see this thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9284567
Still, having a worse-case experience is not necessarily a bad thing. There are people who are newly blind, people who are newly disabled, people who are newly incapacitated.
It's really hard to empathise with some of the issues until you can experience. I never realised the issues aging eyesight causes - until I aged! I'm long sighted. I can mostly still see fine, except my life long trick of moving things to arm's length no longer works - my arms aren't long enough any more. Or the distance is now such that the tiny text of the instructions or ingredients is now too small.
Aging sucks :)
I imagine the day-to-day frustrations are very different for someone with short sight, macular degeneration or the multitude of other eyesight disorders.
Android is terrible at being accessible - I can change font sizes, or zoom the website, but crucial elements don't. Plenty of apps "know best". Or there is some limit of zooming the website or its font. Or you zoom and it completely screws up the columns. In ten or fifteen years, perhaps less, Android will be useless to me. I would need a magnifying glass to use a phone! It's not an issue now, but I can clearly see where it will be, in my forseeable future.
There's quite a few colour blindess simulators out there (http://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simula... http://www.etre.com/tools/colourblindsimulator/) but none of them that I ever found let you plug in a URL.
I'm not aware of scientifically sound vision simulators - we need some. Same goes for other senses and disorders.
Given how the web, and technology, work it should be easy to do much better.
I do want to add, though: "No one complains that typefaces set at 20px are too big to read." - I do, very often, when reading on my phone. If the font is so big that only three or four words fit on a line, I cannot read the paragraph - the vertical scrolling & concentration required is too fatiguing. I'd say it happens on 10-20% of mobile sites today, and it's an increasing proportion. I strongly prefer tiny text with very little scrolling to the opposite. Browser text size preference don't help much; the setting often doesn't have any effect.
This site is fine on mobile (for me), though. And I fully agree with the message, with my caveat.
This isn't really so crazy, and it's not some kind of ableist ageist blind spot that content creators have. There is no demand for 60pt fonts, the people that need them, who are extremely few, are more able to adapt the world to their needs than the world is able to adapt itself. Or maybe their needs are totally missed, but you can say that about literally any tiny group.