> Did anyone else find the green background and the white text clash in a way that made it difficult to read?

No, but only because with Javascript disabled there is literally nothing but an olive green page. Truly remarkable, given that it is supposed to be inclusive.

This is an honest question: are you browsing the web in 2024 with javascript disabled?

You'd be surprised by the number of people who does that. Not everyone has a fancy browser and not everyone can see.

If you cannot see, what use is a font?

And what if you arrive at the site not knowing it's about a font? How are you supposed to find out?

Supporting JavaScript makes a browser "fancy?"

People who can't see use the same browsers as everyone else and they run JavaScript.

https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey10/#javascript

Not the parent, but, why yes! I AM browsing the web in 2024 with javascript disabled. It's a technology that adds no value to any of the content I am interested in, you know, just reading -- content that can be expressed in HTML tags without being injected into a DOM.

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiven...

Hey now, Javascript adds plenty of value to advertisers, crackers, CPU vendors and browser manufacturers seeking lock-in!

Seriously, it does have use in building web apps, but the vast, vast majority of web sites I encounter should be static, or progressively enhanced.

Even if almost no one disables Javascript because the web is unfortunately hardly usable without it, it show that absolutely no fucks are given.

There is no reason for Javascript to be required on that page, it is static and should be nothing more than a simple HTML file with a few images, the font and a style sheet. It is slow on a decent desktop PC with a fiber connection, I can't imagine on an old smartphone. Recently featured on HN: https://danluu.com/slow-device/

But maybe we shouldn't blame the author too much, she is using Squarespace, that's the kind of service people use when they don't want to deal with these technical details. But Squarespace should know better and be ashamed of delivering such crap to their customers.

> are you browsing the web in 2024 with javascript disabled?

I use uMatrix to disable most Javascript by default, and enable sources one-by-one if necessary for a web app. There’s no need to use Javascript on a blog post, certainly not to dynamically load in HTML text and images, so I generally don’t even bother to enable it, and just hit the back button.

The way I look at it is, a web interaction is a conversation: my browser asks a server for a resource, and the server returns it. This makes sense for static HTML: ‘server, please send me this blog post’; ‘sure, here you go, and here are some images or fonts or whatever to make it prettier.’ This, OTOH, feels just wrong: ‘server, please send me this blog post’; ‘sure, here is this list of instructions for you to follow to assemble to blog post.’

Web apps are fine, Javascript is fine for that. Forcing the use of Javascript to do what HTML already can do natively is just wrong.

Not because of the hue, but because the page doesn't respect `prefers-color-scheme`, which makes it hard to take any claim of ‘accessibility’ seriously.

Edit: nor `prefers-reduced-motion`, neither.

Oh, come on. They're using Squarespace. Maybe complain about the state of WYSIWYG editors before dismissing someone's work.

It doesn't matter what tools and facilities they used, they still designed and produced a web page. They are the ones who chose to use squarespace, and use that template, and be ok with the end result.

It's not like a pizza shop or a hairdresser who never claimed that their very reason for existing and mission and product was accessibility.

This is a completely topical and fair challenge.

Why did they need a WYSIWYG editor to lay out static content in an entirely standard format? That could be done in Markdown, or plain html. These have the advantage of being trivial to handle with accessibility layers.

The fade in effect made me nauseous. I hate animation on webpages unless I’m seeking out gifs.

Yeah I still can't tell if I'm just overanalyzing because it's supposed to be easy to read, but I found the webpage, especially the italicized bit, pretty jarring, even in contrast with my usual squinting at HN's tiny font on my phone.

I did too, and I've been sight-reading without thinking about it since preschool. I'm really unaccustomed to having to look hard at a word to see what it says, and that was the only way I could get through this page.

Same here. I can't evaluate the font because of the background.

Don't see why I should wait for images to fade in either.