Advice/Help Can we prioritize accessibility?

[rae2nerdy]

I tried that and it just shows me all the code as text, leaving me to spend just as much time picking through it as it would take me with a magnifying glass and text-to-speech.
Leaving the quote as-is shows the code and images and fonts as-is, which again is a similar problem that could be solved by just posting the plain text in the first place

I might ask the staff. As I’m sure they know more about what the site can and cannot do than the average user.

And if there isn’t a way to make the site itself plain text I would go with the ignore button. It removes posts by players from your view of the thread. And just post in the OOC hey if you want me to interact than post plain text versions of your posts.

If not I’m just going to ignore your post.

 

[Chimney Swift]

I might ask the staff. As I’m sure they know more about what the site can and cannot do than the average user.

And if there isn’t a way to make the site itself plain text I would go with the ignore button. It removes posts by players from your view of the thread. And just post in the OOC hey if you want me to interact than post plain text versions of your posts.

If not I’m just going to ignore your post.

Interesting idea ! You'd think they'd prefer a lightly worded PM, but apparently not.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Interesting idea ! You'd think they'd prefer a lightly worded PM, but apparently not.

Well it will get their attention and it doesn’t require you to do much more than hit a button and make a post in the OOC.

People who are selfish tend to change only when THEY are the ones negatively effected. So trust me try the silent/ignore tactic and see how fast you get a response.

And just stick to your guns. You don’t change I don’t unignore

You will have to click read ignore content in the OOC thread probably to see if they do ask questions or change. But for the IC just keep trucking along as if they were invisible

 

[Kaerri]

Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to make a formatted post into an unformatted post. All I can suggest is to bring the readability problem into the light, as it were, and see how they respond. If they refuse to make reasonable accommodations, that's a good cue as to how reasonable they're going to be about other things too (and I'd bow out at that point).

No, they have no obligation to make those accommodations, but if they're absolutely unwilling to make them, even after being told one of their RP partners can't read it as is, they're nobody I want to spend time with.

On the other hand, if they are willing to help others read their posts, I'm much more likely to stick around!

 

[Fable]

As stated, there isn't a technical way to separate the code from the text. The BBCode has gotten more complicated to allow DIVs and scripts so even if the code had a "revert to plain" option it would still be the same effect as if someone turned off the RTE and quoted the post. They would have to hunt down the actually content of the post through the code and if someone is disabled or even just unfamiliar with coding it would be very time consuming.

Chimney Swift No one is saying they are against your point in that yes, it is unfair that due to coding you are unable to participate in roleplays you would like to. Because RpNation tries to allow it's members to express their creativity, whether it is coding, art, or written content; there is an obvious conflict regarding those with visual impairments versus complex BBCodes and certain coded aesthetics.

A point that wasn't brought up was that to some adding a spoiler in the bottom of a coded post has the risk of breaking it or actually not even working as you would hope it would be intended, and there is a very simple reason for them. Some users don't know how to code fluidly; meaning able to even work on mobile and desktop or multiple themes. I myself am a minimalism coder who tries to offer codes that generally work for both, but sometimes it's just impossible or out of my skill level to truly make something completely fluid that it works for all.

They may not even realize that they've added a white background but didn't change the font color so it wasn't light grey. Sometimes these minor things are forgotten because many stick to one theme and don't always check for it.

The issue of pastel colors with pastel fonts with tiny font size has been an issue for many, even those like myself with normal eyesight. It usually discourages me from participating from the start if I cannot even read the posts and other as well. You'll actually notice those who code with this aesthetic tend to stick together when they roleplay. And that is fine.

They may not want to add a spoiler due to either it breaking their post and not knowing how to resolve it or the simple fact they feel it ruins their aesthetic which is important to them personally.

There are many variables, but generally the players of the site are generally very accommodating. If they are ignoring your request and they are a player in a group RP, you can try reaching out them GM to explain your problem. The GM can either enforce a plain text option or give you the plain text themselves if needed. If they refuse to be accommodating, they simply aren't worth your time because as you said, RPs are a collaborative effort. I get you may really have an interest in a specific roleplay and yes it can suck to have to drop it because of something you cannot control.

As a GM you can create a rule about the posting format. If they don't abide by it, you also have the right to remove them from your roleplay. In my own group RP I made it clear to avoid complex BBCode because I know that some people may not make it readable for other players and they stuck to the rule without complaint.

Like people who make these posts do not care about accessibility. If they cared they wouldn’t make the elaborate posts in the first place.

It's perhaps not that they don't care, but that it simply doesn't come to mind when they are coding that someone may not be able to read it. When I first started coding I didn't bother with mobile friendly codes until it was pointed out to me that a majority of users do use mobile devices. So I do try to make codes now that can be read, but even then I don't know what visual impairments a player may have until they inform me of it. There are so many that a code that works for one player with visual issues may not work for another.

I do enjoy using coding to create an aesthetic for my roleplays. Such as something meant to be sci-fi it would have that coded them.

But the point is these people don’t care about me or you. They are not writing posts so that we can read them.

They are making posts for other people to admire their code skills.

I disagree with the statement as I code not for admiration but because I enjoy coding and have since I was 13 and running my own domains. I enjoy coding to give my RPs a certain theme/feel to them. I do try to code so others can read, but because I cannot know what visual impairments a user may or may not have, I can't accommodate until I am informed by the player with an issue.

You could say the problem is ignorance rather than intended maliciousness.

If a player/GM refuses to accommodate, then all it does is reflect a lack of sympathy and understanding on their part, which at that point why would you bother with them because it could indicate future problems not even on the issue of coding aesthetics.

Also, just a quick FYI. I am actually finally moving into my new place so a chance of a reply is a bit spotty depending on my phone's internet. Where I moved to it can be spotty to down-right a dead zone depending on where I am in the new house.

 

[rae2nerdy]

.

To clarify we have been talking specifically about the people who do not make accomodations. Not about all individuals who use elaborate codes. Or at least that is what I was referencing.

I do not think everyone who uses codes is doing so to show off. I use them myself when I can to make things a touch more pretty.

We are specifically talking about those who do not make a change when asked to do so because their asthetic is more important to them than being accomodating.

 

[Sibelle Grey]

Person with vision impairment issues: "I can't read some things easily, so a simple text version, which you had to write before or while coding and therefore is accessible to you should you choose to keep that on hand for a spoiler/simple text post, would be nice."

Person who most likely could accommodate but will die for their aesthetic: "lolno"

Other person: "I mean . . . Technically, they don't owe you readability on this text-based forum roleplaying site, so . . ."

Y'all. How can we argue that, were there to be a hierarchy of requirements for posts, your posts visually looking the way you like would be would be of higher importance than your posts being readable to the people you're in a group with, interacting with often? We write. That's what we, as roleplayers, do. Some roleplayers also code, and that's fantastic and I personally love to see what others come up with. Code can be so beautiful and ingenious and aesthetically pleasing and really set the tone for a roleplay. I'm a mood board person, so I can understand the appeal of visuals. But when you strip forum roleplaying down to its essentials, it's words on a screen that others read and reply to with others words on the screen. If those words aren't readable, is there even a point? Would it still be forum roleplaying if you were just replying images to each other, or music? (Wait, that might be an interesting format). Arguably, yes, but it wouldn't be the norm, and terms have meanings and associated expectations. When you're roleplaying on a forum, you expect words. Everything else is, to me, extra, but then again, I don't code or expect my partners to code. Nice, but not necessary.

Clearly, to me, the norm should be text that doesn't take me zooming in constantly or straining my already weak eyes to read it. On a forum, it's neither outrageous nor entitled behavior to expect things to be readable, or easy to make readable.

 

[Idea]

to the people you're in a group with, interacting with often?

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I do have to say I don't think anyone was arguing this. Again, do forgive me I may be forgetting some comment, but I think every single person that commented on this thread, this "other person" you're referring to, specifically stated that if you arlready in a roleplay with someone then you ought to accomodate their needs. Of course, interest checks shouldn't be unreadable either, but if they are unreadable then nobody will be able to read them and thus it will get no interest and most likely that person will either adjust their coding or drop the coding anyways.

 

[The Mechanist]

Look, if you code please bring into account that your code may be difficult for others to read, it doesn’t hurt to accommodate others to allow them to read and participate. Not doing so because you don’t want not only makes you look bad but also segregates others from being able to participate in the roleplay which if I recall rpnation is not a site that segregates others. Learn how to code or don’t do it at all if making a spoiler is too difficult.

 

[rae2nerdy]

How can we argue that, were there to be a hierarchy of requirements for posts, your posts visually looking the way you like would be would be of higher importance than your posts being readable to the people you're in a group with, interacting with often? e.

Once more for the people in the back. NO ONE IS SAYING THIS.

We are saying simply You are not owed a spot on every roleplay on this site. You are not even owed a spot on every roleplay you might be vaguely interested in. A GM is not obligated to fundamentally alter their roleplay OR interest check just to suit your wants/needs/disabilities.

So if you join a roleplay where it is very clear that coding is important to the GM / the theme of the roleplay than you do not get to turn around and ask people to make large changes to the functionality of the roleplay just to suit your needs.

The same way I don't get to join a roleplay where the GM is clearly only allowing male players and start complaining about women being excluded. This roleplay is not for me. I need to let that go and find a different roleplay.

 

[Chimney Swift]

Once more for the people in the back. NO ONE IS SAYING THIS.

We are saying simply You are not owed a spot on every roleplay on this site. You are not even owed a spot on every roleplay you might be vaguely interested in. A GM is not obligated to fundamentally alter their roleplay OR interest check just to suit your wants/needs/disabilities.

So if you join a roleplay where it is very clear that coding is important to the GM / the theme of the roleplay than you do not get to turn around and ask people to make large changes to the functionality of the roleplay just to suit your needs.

The same way I don't get to join a roleplay where the GM is clearly only allowing male players and start complaining about women being excluded. This roleplay is not for me. I need to let that go and find a different roleplay.

First of all, I don't know why you keep bringing in phrases like "fundamentally changing". Nobody was talking about making people rework their game from the ground up to suit a certain user.
We were talking about doing a very simple amendment (plain text in a spoiler) that alters nothing about the original post, that could make all the difference.
Nobody has EVER insinuated in this thread that it is bad to code, or that coding is in itself ableist. No one EVER asked someone to remove their code to accommodate people like me. It's just a spoiler. That's all it is.

I'm willing to be respectful of differing opinions and wants, but all you're doing is blowing things out of proportion and putting words in our mouths.

Also, there is no reason to make an RP that only allowed male players. Who cares what the player's gender is when they're all just representing characters? That would be ridiculous and sexist. Your analogy is, in fact, just as exclusive and segregating as not providing simple accommodations to disabled players.

 

[Sibelle Grey]

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I do have to say I don't think anyone was arguing this.

Actually

A GM is not obligated to fundamentally alter their roleplay OR interest check just to suit your wants/needs/disabilities.

This is the sort of reasoning I’m referring to. It makes no sense to me that visuals should be “fundamental” to a roleplay and thus equally as important as readability in any case. As I said, we’re writers. Role playing is a writing-based hobby. I don’t understand this idea that it’s perfectly valid for people to make codes that can’t be easily read if that’s the aesthetic they’re going for. I wrote that reply nearing two in the morning, so in case it wasn’t clear that that’s the point I’m trying to make, then there you have it.
Nobody’s entitled to a roleplay. True. But there’s something baffling about claiming that it’s fine for there not to be a clearly legible version of a post. rae2nerdy , you’re literally saying it’s perfectly fine for someone to prioritize their aesthetic over readability. It’s right there in your post, unless I’m somehow reading it wrong, that “if you join a roleplay where it is very clear that coding is important to the GM / the theme of the roleplay than you do not get to turn around and ask people to make large changes to the functionality of the roleplay just to suit your needs.” Legibility is not a special need. It’s the basis of the hobby. And while I would not join a roleplay where it was clear from the jump that elaborate coding I could not read would be the norm, it’s neither outrageous nor entitled of me to expect things on this text-based site to be readable above beautiful. People can code however they like. But legibility should be the basic requirement for all things roleplay-related, in my opinion. If we can agree basic grammar should be a requirement, because it makes things easy to understand, then I think it’s only normal that we expect all things to be easily readable, because that makes it easy to actually see what was written.

 

[Fable]

Chimney Swift So an idea came to me based on Congenial Organism 's post about Read Mode. Chrome has an extension that allows you to exclude code. It's not the perfect solution as come coding still can pop up in the read mode because it's not using standard HTML/CSS tags, but here is an example (click to enlarge the images);
Normal

Read Mode


Depending on how clean the coding is determines if the extension filters it out. Even for codes like Alteras are converted well and that stuff is crazy! Alteras's codes go on for days, but because they're a pro at coding the extension filters it out!



I'm using Chrome with the Just Read extension for this. There apparently is a normal read mode on FF if you hit F9 and also option for mobile browsers as well I believe if you use that over desktop browsers.

 

[Alteras]

Chimney Swift So an idea came to me based on Congenial Organism 's post about Read Mode. Chrome has an extension that allows you to exclude code. It's not the perfect solution as come coding still can pop up in the read mode because it's not using standard HTML/CSS tags, but here is an example (click to enlarge the images);
Normal
View attachment 475947
Read Mode
View attachment 475948

Depending on how clean the coding is determines if the extension filters it out. Even for codes like Alteras are converted well and that stuff is crazy! Alteras's codes go on for days, but because they're a pro at coding the extension filters it out.!
View attachment 475949
View attachment 475950

I'm using Chrome with the Just Read extension for this. There apparently is a normal read mode on FF if you hit F9 and also option for mobile browsers as well I believe if you use that over desktop browsers.

Ah something I liked to add, FF's read mode doesn't work to well with RPN in general due to the forum layout. It seems to only display a few posts in a given page. Also iOS won't let you display a read mode version of the site, probably due to the same reason.

 

[Fable]

Ah something I liked to add, FF's read mode doesn't work to well with RPN in general due to the forum layout. It seems to only display a few posts in a given page. Also iOS won't let you display a read mode version of the site, probably due to the same reason.

Ah, thanks for the tips. I don't use either of those really. FF is a turtle 99% of the time for me and I own an android so.. CHROME ALL THE WAY! XD I'm sure there is a better extension for FF at least though rather than the default option.

 

[Chimney Swift]

Chimney Swift So an idea came to me based on Congenial Organism 's post about Read Mode. Chrome has an extension that allows you to exclude code. It's not the perfect solution as come coding still can pop up in the read mode because it's not using standard HTML/CSS tags, but here is an example (click to enlarge the images);
Normal
View attachment 475947
Read Mode
View attachment 475948

Depending on how clean the coding is determines if the extension filters it out. Even for codes like Alteras are converted well and that stuff is crazy! Alteras's codes go on for days, but because they're a pro at coding the extension filters it out.!
View attachment 475949
View attachment 475950

I'm using Chrome with the Just Read extension for this. There apparently is a normal read mode on FF if you hit F9 and also option for mobile browsers as well I believe if you use that over desktop browsers.

Ah something I liked to add, FF's read mode doesn't work to well with RPN in general due to the forum layout. It seems to only display a few posts in a given page. Also iOS won't let you display a read mode version of the site, probably due to the same reason.

I'll still check it out to see how well it works. Fable , do you know what devices it's compatible with?

 

[Fable]

I'll still check it out to see how well it works. Fable , do you know what devices it's compatible with?

I'm using Just Read on Chrome right now (desktop). I've not tested it on mobile because I don't really use the site on mobile (and because it's my source of internet rn so it's very slow to run multiple devices) but there are quite a few articles about Chrome's mobile browser having a Read Mode; Google Chrome finally kind of includes a Reading Mode but only on Android - Ctrl blog is one of them and more recent.

 

[Fable]

Chimney Swift
Alteras pointed out to my derp self that the spoilers are what is causing some code to appear as I was using the BBCode center to test multiple threads against the extension. If they use the code tag under the spoiler is nice and clean, otherwise it's a mess of code, but since you'd be using it for reading and not going into the BBCode domain forum I don't think it would affect you unless you didn't want to read something under a spoiler. XD

 

[rae2nerdy]

First of all, I don't know why you keep bringing in phrases like "fundamentally changing". Nobody was talking about making people rework their game from the ground up to suit a certain user.
We were talking about doing a very simple amendment (plain text in a spoiler) that alters nothing about the original post, that could make all the difference.
Nobody has EVER insinuated in this thread that it is bad to code, or that coding is in itself ableist. No one EVER asked someone to remove their code to accommodate people like me. It's just a spoiler. That's all it is.

I'm willing to be respectful of differing opinions and wants, but all you're doing is blowing things out of proportion and putting words in our mouths.

Also, there is no reason to make an RP that only allowed male players. Who cares what the player's gender is when they're all just representing characters? That would be ridiculous and sexist. Your analogy is, in fact, just as exclusive and segregating as not providing simple accommodations to disabled players.

And again like I do not know how many ways I have to say this.

I was not accusing anyone of saying anything. The original point was brought up by Idea as a situation in which people can refuse to alter their codes and it be a valid reasoning.

Which is the exact point I was getting at with the males only roleplay.

You think that’s stupid and exclusionary?

Well what if the GM has a significant other who feels uncomfortable with them playing with female roleplayer so. What if they have been mercilessly abused or harassed by females in the past?

Do they have to go into their past business in order for you to be like. Well gee Sam can absolutely say no women In his roleplay and it isn’t my business why.

If someone requires codes in their roleplay it isn’t about you. It has nothing to do with you or your disability.

And the point Idea and I are making is no one has to include anyone in their roleplay. No one has to alter their interest check for anyone either.

Because frankly a majority of roleplays ARE exclusionary. Whether that’s through post lengths, application processes, gender requirements, or even codes.

People are always picking criteria to exclude others from their roleplays.

It’s not for you to tell them. Well this criteria excludes me from your roleplay and I want you to make accommodations for me.

No because in all likelihood that criteria was meant to be exclusionary in the first place.

Like I am not saying that if a roleplay DOESNT have a code criteria you don’t have the right to kick a fuss and demand people make their roleplay more inclusive. Absolutely you have that right.

I am saying that no one has the right to deliberately join or complain about any roleplay that excludes them.

If you don’t fit the target demographic okay there are other roleplays%

And once again I am not even saying you specifically going around to code required roleplays and demanding people change all the codes to suit you.

I am saying that Idea and I are merely bringing up an alternative scenario where the GM has the right to excluded frankly whomever they want from their roleplay.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Actually

This is the sort of reasoning I’m referring to. It makes no sense to me that visuals should be “fundamental” to a roleplay and thus equally as important as readability in any case. As I said, we’re writers. Role playing is a writing-based hobby. I don’t understand this idea that it’s perfectly valid for people to make codes that can’t be easily read if that’s the aesthetic they’re going for. I wrote that reply nearing two in the morning, so in case it wasn’t clear that that’s the point I’m trying to make, then there you have it.
Nobody’s entitled to a roleplay. True. But there’s something baffling about claiming that it’s fine for there not to be a clearly legible version of a post. rae2nerdy , you’re literally saying it’s perfectly fine for someone to prioritize their aesthetic over readability. It’s right there in your post, unless I’m somehow reading it wrong, that “if you join a roleplay where it is very clear that coding is important to the GM / the theme of the roleplay than you do not get to turn around and ask people to make large changes to the functionality of the roleplay just to suit your needs.” Legibility is not a special need. It’s the basis of the hobby. And while I would not join a roleplay where it was clear from the jump that elaborate coding I could not read would be the norm, it’s neither outrageous nor entitled of me to expect things on this text-based site to be readable above beautiful. People can code however they like. But legibility should be the basic requirement for all things roleplay-related, in my opinion. If we can agree basic grammar should be a requirement, because it makes things easy to understand, then I think it’s only normal that we expect all things to be easily readable, because that makes it easy to actually see what was written.

And my thought Is If the roleplay says code required and you can’t do code for any reason. Than you don’t join/paricipate in that roleplay.

Because you are asking someone to remove a criteria of their roleplay for you and you alone.

Because presumably if you cannot read code you also can’t make code.

This isn’t the same as going to a roleplay where there isn’t no such rule and demanding people change their posts to make them readable. Absolutely you can do that.

But code is important to certain roleplays. Whether it is built into the play function, just an aspect the GM prefers to use in their roleplay for uniformity, or whatever.

The point is that it doesn’t matter WHY someone requires codes. They are perfectly within their rights to do so.

And going up to those people and demanding they remove something important to them just so one single person can join their roleplay is rude and entitled as hell. And aAit would be removing something because presumably if you can’t read code you also can’t create code. So then what sense does it make to allow one person to not follow the code rule hell

When there are a dang near unlimited supply of roleplays and a majority of them don’t have a code requirement.

So the fact that you are going to target the one kind of roleplay that you can’t participate in and make them change their set up to suit you is frankly vile

Note : I am using the general you in this case. I’m not saying anyone is actually doing this. I am saying that if they are it’s rude and entitled as hell.

 

[Idea]

This is the sort of reasoning I’m referring to. It makes no sense to me that visuals should be “fundamental” to a roleplay and thus equally as important as readability in any case. As I said, we’re writers. Role playing is a writing-based hobby. I don’t understand this idea that it’s perfectly valid for people to make codes that can’t be easily read if that’s the aesthetic they’re going for. I wrote that reply nearing two in the morning, so in case it wasn’t clear that that’s the point I’m trying to make, then there you have it.
Nobody’s entitled to a roleplay. True. But there’s something baffling about claiming that it’s fine for there not to be a clearly legible version of a post. @geeking out, you’re literally saying it’s perfectly fine for someone to prioritize their aesthetic over readability. It’s right there in your post, unless I’m somehow reading it wrong, that “if you join a roleplay where it is very clear that coding is important to the GM / the theme of the roleplay than you do not get to turn around and ask people to make large changes to the functionality of the roleplay just to suit your needs.” Legibility is not a special need. It’s the basis of the hobby. And while I would not join a roleplay where it was clear from the jump that elaborate coding I could not read would be the norm, it’s neither outrageous nor entitled of me to expect things on this text-based site to be readable above beautiful. People can code however they like. But legibility should be the basic requirement for all things roleplay-related, in my opinion. If we can agree basic grammar should be a requirement, because it makes things easy to understand, then I think it’s only normal that we expect all things to be easily readable, because that makes it easy to actually see what was written.

I see. Well, that being the case, do allow me to apologize for my mistake, as indeed it seems there was a case of what you mentioned that I didn't notice.

That said, however, I don't think basic legibility or even basic grammar for that matter should be considered requirements if one has not yet compromised to roleplaying with you. If someone typz lyk dis I won't want to roleplay with them, and likely won't roleplay with them, but I don't think they should be banned from existing as attempts. Now don't get me wrong: It's obviously much better to have grammar and readability etc... but I don't think it should be a basic requirement for in those circumstances in which it is actually unreadable, people simply don't join because they can't read it. In other words in the cases where the complaint is of somehting being unreadable is valid, then the roleplay is doomed anyway if it refuses to change, or will have a severely smaller audience. If the complaints (of being unreadable) aren't valid, such as the text being perfectly readable or only troublesome for some very specific people the question does become a bit more complex.


Now I want to (and I'll do it in this post for the sake of convenience mostly) respond to something rae2nerdy said about my points which I would like to correct. While I certainly don't think anyone has to accomodate anyone, or change anything about their interest checks or roleplays, and if they want they can exclude anyone they want, I don't think that's right. I think if a player is interested in your roleplay and can't read it, and make a request explaining that because of disability X or being on phone or something they can't read your roleplay, then you don't have to, but you should change it. And, in many circumstances, you are kind of a prick if you don't.

HOWEVER the idea that that is universal is what I am disagreeing with. Not every circumstance is the same and in some cases I'd argue it's perfectly justifiable. If you don't know someone with a certain disability will be/is trying to read something, or if you know they are reading you don't know that they have any kind of disability. I also think that if whatever is done with the code is any way a major point for your interest check or roleplay then putting that spoiler effectively kills the point and might cause people to misunderstand the idea, so such cases are also justifable. If someone doesn't actually have a disability and are just being lazy about it that's another case where not doing anything is justifiable. Would I not put a spoiler in any of these cirucmstances No, I would still put that spoiler, but that's me. I just think we shouldn't paint people as a**holes for doing something that not only they are entitled to, but which is justifiable.

"Just put a spoiler" isn't nearly as universal or simple of a suggestion as several posts on this thread make it out to be.

 

[rae2nerdy]

I see. Well, that being the case, do allow me to apologize for my mistake, as indeed it seems there was a case of what you mentioned that I didn't notice.

That said, however, I don't think basic legibility or even basic grammar for that matter should be considered requirements if one has not yet compromised to roleplaying with you. If someone typz lyk dis I won't want to roleplay with them, and likely won't roleplay with them, but I don't think they should be banned from existing as attempts. Now don't get me wrong: It's obviously much better to have grammar and readability etc... but I don't think it should be a basic requirement for in those circumstances in which it is actually unreadable, people simply don't join because they can't read it. In other words in the cases where the complaint is of somehting being unreadable is valid, then the roleplay is doomed anyway if it refuses to change, or will have a severely smaller audience. If the complaints (of being unreadable) aren't valid, such as the text being perfectly readable or only troublesome for some very specific people the question does become a bit more complex.


Now I want to (and I'll do it in this post for the sake of convenience mostly) respond to something rae2nerdy said about my points which I would like to correct. While I certainly don't think anyone has to accomodate anyone, or change anything about their interest checks or roleplays, and if they want they can exclude anyone they want, I don't think that's right. I think if a player is interested in your roleplay and can't read it, and make a request explaining that because of disability X or being on phone or something they can't read your roleplay, then you don't have to, but you should change it. And, in many circumstances, you are kind of a prick if you don't.

HOWEVER the idea that that is universal is what I am disagreeing with. Not every circumstance is the same and in some cases I'd argue it's perfectly justifiable. If you don't know someone with a certain disability will be/is trying to read something, or if you know they are reading you don't know that they have any kind of disability. I also think that if whatever is done with the code is any way a major point for your interest check or roleplay then putting that spoiler effectively kills the point and might cause people to misunderstand the idea, so such cases are also justifable. If someone doesn't actually have a disability and are just being lazy about it that's another case where not doing anything is justifiable. Would I not put a spoiler in any of these cirucmstances No, I would still put that spoiler, but that's me. I just think we shouldn't paint people as a**holes for doing something that not only they are entitled to, but which is justifiable.

"Just put a spoiler" isn't nearly as universal or simple of a suggestion as several posts on this thread make it out to be.

Fair enough my point is essentially the same I think. Roleplays are not universally open to all participants.

I just place more stock in the GM ability to exclude whomever they want.

Not saying it doesnt make them a prick btw. I just happen to think GM kinda need to be a little bit prick-ish in the application process to get the selection of players they want.

But I come from toxicpeople.com where being an asshole was the only way to keep your roleplay from being overrun by trolls and divas.

I don’t however do groups on this site. So I am perhaps being overly harsh. I’m sure groups here aren’t nearly the hellmouths of ego and drama as they were on my old site.

 

[Fable]

I think there is still a miscommunication going on here. The original point of this wasn't to try and ask someone to stop using BBCode, but to - upon request - inquire about a plain text version to accommodate an interested party who is either unable to read because of a certain factor, whether it's a visual impairment, conflicts with mobile devices, or it's white text on a white background due to faulty coding.

I haven't read a post where there is a demand that users who code should stop because someone has issues. The topic is the issue of refusal to accommodate, which we've seemed to all agree on that point that it is silly to exclude someone based on the problem they cannot control something such as legitimate visual impairment.

GMs can set forth their own requirements for their roleplays and can determine who can join and who cannot which is expressed in the Roleplay Rights thread. I've actually never seen a GM have a a "must apply code to posts" requirement. Usually players just sort of code to beautify their posts which can affect readability for some.

There is always that option of compromise which has already been suggested which is the use of spoilers. There will be those that will consider it as an option if brought up and those who will refuse for whatever reason. All someone can do is ask and hope for some understanding about the difficulty reading with certain codes, use tools such as the Read Mode as a work around, or accept a GM or players refusal to accommodate. The last option of course is the least desired as while GMs have the right to exclude players, inclusion is also an important factor here on RpNation. We hope the community to be inclusive to others, but we will not force it.

 

[Idea]

I think there is still a miscommunication going on here. The original point of this wasn't to try and ask someone to stop using BBCode, but to - upon request - inquire about a plain text version to accommodate an interested party who is either unable to read because of a certain factor, whether it's a visual impairment, conflicts with mobile devices, or it's white text on a white background due to faulty coding.

While some people keep repeating that they don't mean "stop using codes" that is not the point that me or geeking have been arguing against. While I won't be speaking for rae2nerdy more than that sentence for the sake of not misrepresenting their point to me personally I argued against the notion that players should always include prior to anything a spoiler. Namely I argued that there are cases when not doing so is justified.

 

[Fable]

While some people keep repeating that they don't mean "stop using codes" that is not the point that me or geeking have been arguing against. While I won't be speaking for rae2nerdy more than that sentence for the sake of not misrepresenting their point to me personally I argued against the notion that players should always include prior to anything a spoiler. Namely I argued that there are cases when not doing so is justified.

If you read my other post I also clarified that users may have reasons to not include a spoiler (code breaking, lack of coding skill to resolve code breaking, etc). However if someone is inquiring about options for a plain text version it doesn't always mean "use a spoiler." I think you misunderstood my point, but I also have posted previously and it was misread.

The assumption is the general userbase doesn't take into consideration of readability regarding coding. They code and leave it at that, hence why someone may, as I mentioned, inquire about a plain text option. Whether it is a spoiler or just a PM with the plain text or some other compromise. As I've said, it's ignorance and not maliciousness that many may not include a spoiler until the matter is discussed or brought up to them. From that point they can either accommodate or refuse.

Somehow between the first post and the recent ones the subject became turned into a discussion about entitlement and users demanding users to stop coding for their comfort. The OP made the point of it doesn't take much time to offer a spoiler/plain text version, though there are circumstances where if a post is buried under 800 pages of code it can be, but that's for users like Alteras XD The OP also stated they had inquired when they wished to join but couldn't read the posts, which is fine to inquire imo.

The bare bones of this matter is a visually impaired player, or even a normal sighted player, can have difficulty reading coded posts and that is it reasonable to inquire for plain text in those cases. It would be reasonable to offer a spoiler with a plain text version if someone asks due to readability issues, but not required if you are not inclined to do so for whatever reason. Which we've agreed it is within the right of the coding player if they don't want to offer it.

I feel like we're just discussing in circles at this point and not actually getting to the center because people are perhaps misunderstanding points others are making.

Anyway, this is gonna be my last reply here. I've said my piece and offered what I hope is a tool that can help the OP and others in this situation to give them better accessibility.