> I so frequently see this tone with accessibility discussions: "X is not accessible, so don't use it, stop what you're doing, this is bad."

'Don't use X for reasons ABC' is a great advice! Why use unusable X if some other thing Y works?

Have you tried using Wavvy on a smartphone? Guess what: it's effectively unusable on smartphones:
- touch events aren't leveraged.
- hover and right click aren't available, and keyboard shortcuts don't have an appropriate substitute; therefore core audio editing tasks cannot be accomplished in any acceptable manner.

If you are accustomed as I am to use Audacity on a desktop PC - clicking, cutting, shortcutting your sound files effortlessly - but then use Wavvy for the first time, you gonna feel...

disabled.

And that's only a glimpse into what the experience must be for a blind person using Wavvy. Here is an experiment: Close your eyes, use Wavvy. Only OCR allowed...

Being an awesome POC, the accessibility issues aren't Wavvy's "fault", but wxwidget's (and Audacity's by depending on wxwidget).

Considering audio is especially valuable for visually impaired people, having a usable audio editor is very valuable.

Now imagine, as it's so often the case in IT, everybody jumps on the latest bandwagon ("Docker all the things!", "Electron all the things!"), and suddenly everybody "WASM-canvases all the things!".

Now imagine Audacity decides "WASM-canvas" is the way to go for Audacity distribution; no more separate builds for Windows, Linux, macOS, just one WASM-canvas build.

And so do other software projects. And so does your company with its IT department software contribution... more and more, you cannot do your tasks the way you used to...

Back to the comment: constructive critique is always helpful:

- It helps Wavvy to consider using an alternative audio editor.
- It helps Audacity to improve their usability and accessibility and consider another widget provider.
- It helps wxwidget to fix their accessibility shortcomings.

We discuss problematic tools, libraries, websites, and services all the time at HN - be it for privacy concerns, performance issues and whatnot. We all learn from that why e.g. having a slice of privacy is also a good thing for us personally. So is accessibility, even when it's just the slices involving good layouts, readable fonts, unconfusing button naming, logical tabbing order, consistent shortcuts across applications, big-enough advertising close buttons, unfrustating timepickers... , ..., ...

> I don't think that kind of scolding - which is what it comes off as - is productive for solving the problem of "X is not accessible"...

ClawsOnPaws is neither scolding, nor is it coming off as it for me. They apologize upfront, says "please, please, please", says "my aim is not to discourage anyone from trying out new things".

If there was one polite, constructive comment at HN it be it.

> ...because it presumes the problem is unfixable.

I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that this was even remotely implied.

> But I think you should consider focusing on this: "I'm sure there are ways to add accessibility to a web port of WX"

I think you should consider focusing on this: "I'm sure wxwidgets could follow basic accessibility best practices and leverage accessibility APIs which are provided by operating systems already for years."

> why not seize this moment to say "hey let's find ways to make WASM apps more accessible"

I'm not an WASM expert, but I'm versed in accessibility features specified by W3C and implemented in browsers. As WASM can interact with Javascript, and Javascript allows all kinds of web accessibility standards interactions, this part is solved. What's required then is a mapping from OS accessibility calls (wxwidgets' duty) to browserland (WASM's side). I don't know about WASM's status here, but wxwidgets will have to make its own first step.
...

ClawsOnPaws' comment is a tangent comment on an important aspect of any application: usability. It gives awesome insights about why Wavvy is unusable for visually-impaired users.

- I learned that Audacity has its own problems with accessibility; - I learned that Audacity uses wxWidgets, which especially is bad when it comes to accessibility. That already is great to know, as I'm now informed to avoid it in my projects - with bad accessibility always comes a generally bad usability.
- Now port this to the web as in the currently presented Wavvy form and you get a hilarious clusterfuck of inaccessibility. I learned from the comment that usability by default and without explicit consideration just degrates with each layer added and each porting.
- useful information that there exists some OCR software for what's currently shown on the screen.

In essence, ClawsOnPaws' comment has everything in it for why I come to Hacker News.