I don’t mean this to be rude, but that’s how complete sentences work. Sometimes they’re internally inconsistent, but when you reach the full stop you’ve hopefully arrived at a coherent view of what the speaker intended to express. I know with this one that I did, even when I noted the same inconsistency. It seems you did too, but got hung up mid-sentence anyway. Maybe just be glad you understand what they meant to say?
The point is, calling it zero-tolerance when it's not is misleading. There's a perfectly fine way to describe zero-tolerance with exceptions, and it's not even far fetched: “low tolerance”.
Complete sentences may make it possible to pretend bad wording is consistent, but that doesn't make it good wording.
I guess I should clarify that in the rare case I still want to access the content, I still do not engage with the modal dialogs, but instead use a proxy service such as archive.is to present it in an accessible way.
I consider modals to be a gross accessibility issue.
I went through a phase when I was reading way too much about communism and riding shotgun back and forth to Buffalo a lot while stoned and resolved I was going to quit reading the web with a normal web browser but instead I was going to run everything through a workflow system that would convert web sites to HAR files, strip out all the ads and bullshit.
I worked on it pretty seriously for two weeks but got hung up on the problem that my web archiving system was never 100% sure that a page had finished loading (that there would be more significant AJAX calls) so it would set long timeouts and even with a lot of stripping out the junk it was going to be even more awkward than dealing with the junk.
Looking back at it however it looked like an overly ambitious project.
By zero tolerance, I mean to say that I do not engage with the dialogs in any way, e.g. clicking agree, cancel, close, or the area around the dialog if it is blocking the page.
By few exceptions, I mean that I look for an alternative method to access the content rather than disengaging from it entirely.
I am imperfect, so if you were to observe me 24/7, you would probably see me slip up eventually. But this is an ideal I strive for and for the most part am satisfied with the results of pursuing.
FWIW I'm very sorry I put you through this. My comment was low value, posted during insomnia, I was very surprised by the reach it gained while I slept at last.
eyelidlessness|3 years ago
tripa|3 years ago
Complete sentences may make it possible to pretend bad wording is consistent, but that doesn't make it good wording.
forgotmypw17|3 years ago
I guess I should clarify that in the rare case I still want to access the content, I still do not engage with the modal dialogs, but instead use a proxy service such as archive.is to present it in an accessible way.
I consider modals to be a gross accessibility issue.
nyanpasu64|3 years ago
PaulHoule|3 years ago
I worked on it pretty seriously for two weeks but got hung up on the problem that my web archiving system was never 100% sure that a page had finished loading (that there would be more significant AJAX calls) so it would set long timeouts and even with a lot of stripping out the junk it was going to be even more awkward than dealing with the junk.
Looking back at it however it looked like an overly ambitious project.
forgotmypw17|3 years ago
By zero tolerance, I mean to say that I do not engage with the dialogs in any way, e.g. clicking agree, cancel, close, or the area around the dialog if it is blocking the page.
By few exceptions, I mean that I look for an alternative method to access the content rather than disengaging from it entirely.
I am imperfect, so if you were to observe me 24/7, you would probably see me slip up eventually. But this is an ideal I strive for and for the most part am satisfied with the results of pursuing.
tripa|3 years ago
uwuemu|3 years ago