Changes to the Way We Make Changes

The reason why I asked is because the old FAQ page had everything listed clearly with each book having their own exclusive page and each FAQ response having its own individualized link making it easy to reference.

I don't like the new drop down per question thing, which always breaks and is terrible to search,

but finding an FAQ under the old format in PF1 was a pain in the tail. If you need to look for how thing from book 1 and book 2 interact you had to look under at least 2 places. How Archetypes worked in general didn't belong in any book so got put under the core rulebook, which didn't have them. I kept looking under the familiar folio for options out of the animal archibve...

Temperans wrote:

The reason why I asked is because the old FAQ page had everything listed clearly with each book having their own exclusive page and each FAQ response having its own individualized link making it easy to reference.

I don't like the new drop down per question thing, which always breaks and is terrible to search,

but finding an FAQ under the old format in PF1 was a pain in the tail. If you need to look for how thing from book 1 and book 2 interact you had to look under at least 2 places. How Archetypes worked in general didn't belong in any book so got put under the core rulebook, which didn't have them. I kept looking under the familiar folio for options out of the animal archibve...

Yeah okay that sounds fair, specially when you have stuff that is connected to multiple different books.

They could just get rid of the dropdowns and have a long, simple page. Not as aesthetically pleasing but I would much rather be able to Ctrl-F items on a long page than hunt through mystery meat dropdowns.

It's a legitimate usability issue. For example, I would bet you less than 10% of players even know which CRB errata Battle Medicine Handeddness is in, or which version nerfed finesse weapons + trip.

They could just get rid of the dropdowns and have a long, simple page. Not as aesthetically pleasing but I would much rather be able to Ctrl-F items on a long page than hunt through mystery meat dropdowns.

It's a legitimate usability issue. For example, I would bet you less than 5% of players even know which errata Battle Medicine Handeddness is in, or which errata nerfed finesse weapons + trip. Where would most people even begin to look?

You can have the best of both worlds by just clicking every dropdown when you want the long list so you can ctrl f for what you're looking for.

Doug Hahn wrote:

They could just get rid of the dropdowns and have a long, simple page. Not as aesthetically pleasing but I would much rather be able to Ctrl-F items on a long page than hunt through mystery meat dropdowns.

It's a legitimate usability issue. For example, I would bet you less than 5% of players even know which errata Battle Medicine Handeddness is in, or which errata nerfed finesse weapons + trip. Where would most people even begin to look?

You can have the best of both worlds by just clicking every dropdown when you want the long list so you can ctrl f for what you're looking for.

Is this sarcasm?

It's not impossible to find things on the page, it's just difficult.. e.g. not very usable. If you think clicking 14 dropdowns and then searching is a viable option… then I guess you have more patience at the table than I do!

Also note, for many users the dropdowns don't even work on mobile. This has been reported numerous times on the website feedback forum.

Is this sarcasm?

It's not impossible to find things on the page, it's just [I]difficult.[I]. e.g. not usable. If you think clicking 14 dropdowns and then searching is a viable option… then I guess you have more patience at the table than I do!

No... I JUST did this to find something and it was quick to find what I was looking for. You start at the bottom dropdown and work your way up and that took maybe a second or two. Ctrl f and shifting through took another few seconds. So maybe 10-15 seconds to find what I waned. If that's too long, I don' know what to tell you.

Also note, for many users the dropdowns don't even work on mobile. This has been reported numerous times on the website feedback forum.

This may be an issue as I haven't tried looking with mobile. Let me try... Nope, my phone worked the same [and my phone is about as basic as an android smart phone can be]: the only wrinkle was having to reload the page to get rid of the drop down menu I took to get to he FAQ. So I can't help you if others are having issues with mobile.

No... I JUST did this to find something and it was quick to find what I was looking for. You start at the bottom dropdown and work your way up and that took maybe a second or two.

Tried this. Click Interstellar species no problem. Click An actual FAQ question and open it, the screen breaks.

Firerox broke after one FAQ. Chrome broke after 4 ish.

Doug Hahn wrote:

Is this sarcasm?

It's not impossible to find things on the page, it's just [I]difficult.[I]. e.g. not usable. If you think clicking 14 dropdowns and then searching is a viable option… then I guess you have more patience at the table than I do!

No... I JUST did this to find something and it was quick to find what I was looking for. You start at the bottom dropdown and work your way up and that took maybe a second or two. Ctrl f and shifting through took another few seconds. So maybe 10-15 seconds to find what I waned. If that's too long, I don' know what to tell you.

Doug Hahn wrote:

Also note, for many users the dropdowns don't even work on mobile. This has been reported numerous times on the website feedback forum.

This may be an issue as I haven't tried looking with mobile. Let me try... Nope, my phone worked the same [and my phone is about as basic as an android smart phone can be]: the only wrinkle was having to reload the page to get rid of the drop down menu I took to get to he FAQ. So I can't help you if others are having issues with mobile.

I'm glad it works on your particular device and you're satisfied having to reload the page in addition to opening the dropdowns manually; perhaps you can help all the people on the website feedback forum with their own specific devices and situations. People certainly have documented issues there.

"It took me 10-15 seconds to click 14 links then search" is not an example of good usability. Again, what takes YOU a short amount of time, or is easy, is not universally true for all or even most people.

Again, a single page with no hidden content would be easier to use.

BTW I don't personally have an issue with the Paizo FaQ page for a variety of reasons, but I can still advocate for the people who do have issues. After all, the goal here is to disseminate information and make it useful to the most people possible, right?

graystone wrote:

No... I JUST did this to find something and it was quick to find what I was looking for. You start at the bottom dropdown and work your way up and that took maybe a second or two.

Tried this. Click Interstellar species no problem. Click An actual FAQ question and open it, the screen breaks.

*shrug* Don't know what to tell you. I could click open every drop down and find items in them. Maybe it's a type of phone or apple vs android? Mine's an android using the base chrome browser. Also, Interstellar species? Are we talking about starfinder or pathfinder? I don't see Interstellar species or individual entries that need clicked.

I'm glad it works on your device; perhaps you can go help all the people on the website feedback forum with their own specific devices and situations. People also have issues scrolling, etc

"It took me 10-15 seconds to click 14 links then search" is not an example of good usability. Again, what takes YOU a short amount of time, or is easy, is not universally true for all people.

Again, a single page with no hidden content would be easier to use.

AGAIN, my point is that there is virtually no difference between no hidden contend and hidden content that can be unhidden in seconds as it allows the benefits of both: those that know where the errata is can open just that part and make a smaller search and those tha don't can return it to the one big list.

As to 'maybe it's just easy for me'... it's starting at the bottom of the spoilers and clicking each one up until you get to the full list you suggest is best. I can't imagine this process as hard. Maybe it's a few seconds more work than you like but hard or onerous in length?

PS: I'll look at the later.
PPS: It seems "seems to be rather prevalent with the PFS pages". As I don't play PFS, it seems it's not odd I didn't find an issue as all sections mentioned are organized play links.

Firerox broke after one FAQ. Chrome broke after 4 ish.

Yep, it's completely broken on (my) Firefox: when you open one list, it doesn't allow you to scroll up or down anymore at all, even if you close the list. Only reloading helps.

AGAIN, my point is that there is virtually no difference between no hidden contend and hidden content that can be unhidden in seconds

This is only true if it can truly be unhidden in seconds for everyone, which I highly doubt is the case here. For instance, I suspect the current setup is more challenging if you're searching for something on that page using a screen reader.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Firerox broke after one FAQ. Chrome broke after 4 ish.

Yep, it's completely broken on (my) Firefox: when you open one list, it doesn't allow you to scroll up or down anymore at all, even if you close the list. Only reloading helps.

I can't replicate this: seems to work ok on mine. Is your firefox updated? Mine is a fresh install and updated.

graystone wrote:

AGAIN, my point is that there is virtually no difference between no hidden contend and hidden content that can be unhidden in seconds

This is only true if it can truly be unhidden in seconds for everyone, which I highly doubt is the case here. For instance, I suspect the current setup is more challenging if you're searching for something on that page using a screen reader.

I can imagine it's more challenging searching in general using a screen reader, no matter the setup. We'd have to hear from someone using one before we know if it's a substantial barrier to use. I'd already thought about people using compatibility options but I don't know enough to say if this would be an issue and the best way to know would be if someone using them weighs in. So my comments where to the average fully able user. Myself, I'm colorblind so I understand that sometimes others don't see an issue with reading something and I do: if I don't say anything. they'll never know.

Gray, you're mixing up your own individual experience with a need to address the broader experiences of a global community of diverse users.

Here is an NNG article about accordion menus. It's from 2014 but discusses a use case similar to Paizo's and its core concepts are relevant.[/url]. NNG is a respected and authoritative source on usability because they do lots of measuring and case studies. It's not just some random person's website.

Summary: Longer pages can benefit users. Accordions shorten pages and reduce scrolling, but they increase the interaction cost by requiring people to decide on topic headings.

…

• Forcing people to click on headings one at a time to display full content can be cumbersome.
• Accordions increase interaction cost.
• Hiding content behind navigation diminishes people’s awareness of it.
• Accessibility is an important consideration.
• Printing is another consideration.

From accessibility to printing to interaction cost, this article's 5 key issues above have all been corroborated by users in this thread… in addition to the legitimate technical issues brought to light both here and on the website feedback forums.

In other words, we've already heard from many people.

Gray, you're mixing up your own individual experience with a need to address the broader experiences of a global community of diverse users.

I'm not: if someone has issue, they are free to post them. I can only say that I don't see an issue and I don't see an issue for the average user.

• Forcing people to click on headings one at a time to display full content can be cumbersome.

Sure it CAN. I don't think it's at a length that it IS.

• Accordions increase interaction cost.

Sure, but I don't think it's enough of one to be much of a cost.

• Hiding content behind navigation diminishes people’s awareness of it.

As does a wall o' text. If you don't know what you're looking for, I don't see the wall o' text any better option and it's worse when trying to see one particular errata section as the wall of text doesn't allow not showing what you don't want.

• Accessibility is an important consideration.

Quite possibly. We'd have to hear from people with accessibility issues to know.

• Printing is another consideration.

Not an issue here IMO. The issue with printing I've heard of is not having a PDF, not wall o' text vs spoilers. I don't see a substantial difference between getting the wall o' text to print vs the opened spoilers to do so. Plus, it's much easier to print out specific errata when you separate them: for instance, printing out the World Guide errata is easier when you can get JUST that to show up.

From accessibility to printing to interaction cost, this article's 5 key points above have all been corroborated users comments in this thread… in addition to the technical issues brought to light both here and on the website feedback fporums.

Issues with the website are issue with the website: as it's an issue with other formats, I don't see this as relevant; IE not an issue of spoiler vs wall o' text. Similarly, other point aren't definitively an issue with spoilers or are made better with a wall o' text.

I don't see an issue for the average user

Gray how are you defining "average user?" I'd love to hear that.

______

You should read the article I linked as it also discusses the general points you tried to refute, in addition to refuting the myth of long pages being less accessible — something else you bring up. By the way the article is founded on user research, not individual opinions. I thought it would be helpful to bring in a citable source, and it was interesting how its points lined up with comments people brought up here.

______

BTW the FaQ is tough to use with voiceover too. So, now you are hearing from a real user about that issue as well.

This is because the user has to open each heading manually and then each item separately using ctrl-option-space just to get to the text. It's really difficult to navigate, and I cannot imagine opening all the items being anything but cumbersome.

In addition, there are four hidden buttons on each FAQ item in a hidden "sharing_widget" div that the screen reader picks up, increasing the difficulty to navigate as the screen reader foces you to cycle through each of them on each item.

Anyone who wishes to better understand usability or to build empathy with vision-disabled users can and SHOULD try to use a screen reader out for themselves. Both macOS and Windows have them installed already. Give it a spin for yourself.

The whole website is littered with questionable layout decisions but it is what it is, the whole thing almost certainly runs on legacy code that is spaghetti behind the scenes that will fall apart if they shift even one variable.

Regardless, maybe that discussion should be taken to the website feedback section, it is decidedly off-topic.

Gray how are you defining "average user?" I'd love to hear that.

The average... Specifically, those able to access and use the site without any extra hurtles.

You should actually read the article I linked as it discusses all the general points you tried to refute, in addition to the myth of long pages being less accessible. By the way the article is backed up with empirical research, not opinions.

*shrug* I just know from personal experience some people's eyes just glaze over and have a harder time when presented with a wall o' text. Myself, I prefer the smaller, bite sized reads as it's easier to consume at a time. As to the whole article, you already summarized it for me: "Longer pages can benefit users." Not 'Longer pages DO benefit users': I gave my reasons why I think in this situation it doesn't.

Secondly a quote from there: "Accordions are more suitable when people need only a few key pieces of content on a single page. By hiding most of the content, users can spend their time more efficiently focused on the few topics that matter." I can say, most of my time is this: I'm looking for a specific errata and not reading though it without a specific goal.

BTW the FaQ is tough to use with voiceover too. You have to open with each heading and then each item separately using ctrl-option-space just to get to the text.

In addition, there are four hidden buttons on each FAQ item in a hidden "sharing_widget" div that the screen reader picks up, increasing the difficulty to navigate.

This seems like an website issue partly [sharing_widget] and I'm not sure opening each heading is a pro or con, as it depends on how they search: if you're looking for dark archives errata, it'd seem to me it'd be better. Would an 'open all spoilers' button a the top of the screen solve what you don't like?

The whole website is littered with questionable layout decisions but it is what it is, the whole thing almost certainly runs on legacy code that is spaghetti behind the scenes that will fall apart if they shift even one variable.

Regardless, maybe that discussion should be taken to the website feedback section, it is decidedly off-topic.

While I don't see it off topic [it's a thread about errata and we're debating how that errata is presented], but I don't mind moving on.

Accessibility is important. So long as they are making changes to how often they report errata, I would support Paizo making changes to HOW they report errata.

Fixing how the FAQ layout works is a good step in this direction.

Although this is partially a website issue, it's also a 'how the errata is reported' issue.

Hmm

PS But I think Graystone is correct that we've made that point for now. I'm okay with us moving on.

graystone wrote:

No... I JUST did this to find something and it was quick to find what I was looking for. You start at the bottom dropdown and work your way up and that took maybe a second or two.

Tried this. Click Interstellar species no problem. Click An actual FAQ question and open it, the screen breaks.

Firerox broke after one FAQ. Chrome broke after 4 ish.

Not to start up again, but I checked the starfinder FAQ and it indeed IS broken when you open up a specific question using firefox, so I see your issue there: just waned to confirm it for you.

Ok, back to your normally scheduled program.

Would an 'open all spoilers' button a the top of the screen solve what you don't like?

You're framing it like a subjective opinion when myself and many others here have given you examples, discussed personal experience, screen reader tests, linked examples to the web forums, and provided references from reliable sources with case studies.

I would recommend you avoid using your own experience as a baseline for the "average user" or to define what constitutes difficulty.

Again, try walking in someone else's shoes. Use a screen reader with your eyes closed. See how it is for yourself.

You will see the web in general is pretty bad, but it's a little extra sad to see accessibility framed here as a personal problem and not something we should try to do better with as a community.

______

My own opinion is something that combines the best of both worlds, a long page with no hidden text and robust and structured navigation as well as good search. Dare to dream.

You will see the web in general is pretty bad, but it's a little extra sad to see accessibility framed here as a personal problem and not something we should try to do better with as a community.

Dude, not cool. I SPECIFICALLY said I wasn't talking about people with accessibility issue. I asked an honest question as you mentioned how hard it was to use the accessibility options to open multiple tabs. Please be truthful when posting.

Doug Hahn wrote:

You will see the web in general is pretty bad, but it's a little extra sad to see accessibility framed here as a personal problem and not something we should try to do better with as a community.

Dude, not cool. I SPECIFICALLY said I wasn't talking about people with accessibility issue. I asked an honest question as you mentioned how hard it was to use the accessibility options to open multiple tabs. Please be truthful when posting.

In response to the section about testing. with Voicover you wrote:

"This seems like an website issue partly [sharing_widget] and I'm not sure opening each heading is a pro or con, as it depends on how they search: if you're looking for dark archives errata, it'd seem to me it'd be better. Would an 'open all spoilers' button a the top of the screen solve what you don't like?"

I saw a disclaimer at the beginning of your post, but your response to the specific screen reader issue is to be rather dismissive of a problem UI element that appears in screen readers but has been purposefully and visually obfuscated by the devs. Followed by an ask that frames it as my own personal problem and not one I discovered while testing as a blind user.

Sorry if I misread your intent, but paired with your insistence that your own personal experience should be the baseline for what constitutes "average" or "easy" for web users, and refusal to acknowledge the evidence others have given here, can you blame me?

Edit: this conversation is not productive, so I am muting the thread. Accessibility is a challenging topic and I don't think getting heated helps have a good discussion. I will keep an eye on the website feedback forums should it come up later.

"This seems like an website issue partly [sharing_widget] and I'm not sure opening each heading is a pro or con, as it depends on how they search: if you're looking for dark archives errata, it'd seem to me it'd be better. Would an 'open all spoilers' button a the top of the screen solve what you don't like?"

I saw a disclaimer above at the beginning of your post, but your response to the specific screen reader issue is to be rather dismissive of a problem UI element that appears in screen readers but has been purposefully and visually obfuscated by the devs.

I don't pretend to know what it's like to use that accessibility device every day, so I DON'T KNOW what's better for them. It's not dismissing to admit that and not reply as if I knew. That's why I asked the question I did and pointed out that some of it, to a layman, seemed to be a coding issue.

Sorry if I misread your intent, but paired with your insistence that your own personal experience should be the baseline for what constitutes "average" or "easy" for users, and refusal to acknowledge the evidence others have given here, can you blame me?

Yes, yes I can blame you. I didn't refute 'evidence': your link gives cases where either format is better and I disagree on how onerous it is for those without accessibility issues. NONE of this infers that I'm framing anything about those with accessibility issue, especially after I specifically said I wasn't talking about them. It's cool to disagree but to infer I'm ignoring issues for disabled people is offensive.

Just to be EXTRA clear, I wasn't trying to silence the conversation, in fact, I think it's an important one to have but the website feedback section and a dedicated thread on the subject of suggesting/researching/finding ways to make it easier for those who are visually impaired is a whole separate beast that I think deserves its own thread.

Just to be EXTRA clear, I wasn't trying to silence the conversation, in fact, I think it's an important one to have but the website feedback section and a dedicated thread on the subject of suggesting/researching/finding ways to make it easier for those who are visually impaired is a whole separate beast that I think deserves its own thread.

No problem, it's cool. I agree a separate thread would better serve it getting seen, especially if it's mentioned in the title. It wouldn't hurt to have it mentioned in multiple places as it's an important issue.

I don't pretend to know what it's like to use that accessibility device every day, so I DON'T KNOW what's better for them. It's not dismissing to admit that and not reply as if I knew. That's why I asked the question I did and pointed out that some of it, to a layman, seemed to be a coding issue.

What is any of this but a coding issue? Perhaps this is a more accurate way to phrase your question?

"Do you think a blind user might get find the page more accessible with an 'open all' button?"

instead of

"Would an 'open all spoilers' button a the top of the screen solve what you don't like."

I hope you can see how one of these is not like the other.

I didn't refute 'evidence': your link gives cases where either format is better and I disagree on how onerous it is for those without accessibility issues.

Great! There are use cases for all kinds of patterns. I'm glad you read the article.

I personally think something in the middle is better: a robust navigation for people who can hone in quickly, search, and exposed longer text. For example a ToC in a sidebar. As I said above. Maybe that can be a starting point for another thread in an appropriate forum.

As a perfectly normal and average Pirate Rob, despite not getting mobile scrolling frozen I find the page nearly unusable on mobile and an unwieldly pain to use on desktop.

"Do you think a blind user might get find the page more accessible with an 'open all' button?"

instead of

"Would an 'open all spoilers' button a the top of the screen solve what you don't like."

I hope you can see how one of these is not like the other.

Semantics IMO. You didn't present yourself as blind, so as I stated I'm not going to put myself in a blind persons shoes and assume what they need I'm also NOT going to ask someone else to. As such, I asked YOU about an issue YOU saw: I have no way of knowing how much of an issue it would be to a blind person without asking them and having their input. I'm not comfortable asking a sighted person [other than someone like a Accessibility Consultant who interacts with the the blind and the program used] how something works for a blind person.

Great! There are use cases for all kinds of patterns. I'm glad you read the article.

I personally think something in the middle is better: a robust navigation for people who can hone in quickly, search, and exposed longer text. For example a ToC in a sidebar. As I said above. Maybe that can be a starting point for another thread in an appropriate forum.

I'm totally open to a redesign, I just don't know what that would be: It's why I wondered if an 'open all' might be some kind of compromise. A search for the FAQ itself would be a big plus.

I'm totally open to a redesign, I just don't know what that would be: It's why I wondered if an 'open all' might be some kind of compromise. A search for the FAQ itself would be a big plus.

Your sample size of one not withstanding, everyone I know has trouble accessing this. Even you have to do a trick to make it functional, which not everyone is going to know about.

That level of inaccessibility happens in the name of a completely optional tab system, just get rid of the tabs and have plain text. Or plain text with the top bookmarked to them. no. that would not be the pinnacle of website design but it would be a vast improvement.

Your sample size of one not withstanding, everyone I know has trouble accessing this. Even you have to do a trick to make it functional, which not everyone is going to know about.

You never did reply on what FAQ you where talking about: from your post it seemed like starfinder and I confirmed that that FAQ does indeed have issues. The pathfinder one has a different format and doesn't require clicking on individual entries [the second spoiler seems to be the problem].

As to the 'trick', it's just noticing that ctrl f only looks at spoiler text when it's opened, so you have to open them if you want to search them. It's not elegant but it works.

Your sample size of one not withstanding, everyone I know has trouble accessing this.

Larger than one, as I hadn't heard of any issue from people I play with and in fact didn't know anyone had issues until I heard of it here. So, I have the opposite experience from you: I'm only looking at/playing PF2 though.

just get rid of the tabs and have plain text. Or plain text with the top bookmarked to them. no. that would not be the pinnacle of website design but it would be a vast improvement.

I wouldn't want just the wall o' text personally, so I'd vote against the plain text option. Now some kind of bookmarking and separate sections for each set of errata would be the closest to that that I'd like.

Errenor wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Firerox broke after one FAQ. Chrome broke after 4 ish.

Yep, it's completely broken on (my) Firefox: when you open one list, it doesn't allow you to scroll up or down anymore at all, even if you close the list. Only reloading helps.

I can't replicate this: seems to work ok on mine. Is your firefox updated? Mine is a fresh install and updated.

Mine(s) is(are) (not) working like this for more than a year on both Windows and Linux on different PCs both frequently updated, so on several versions. Even if the problem is some addons, it's the only site I have problems with. And as I run only the absolutely essential ones, I'm not even going to search which are the (possible) problem, because I need all of them anyway.

P.S. Also it's not even addons OR even settings: it's (not) working like this even with all addons turned off, even in troubleshooting mode!

Probably a dumb question. But why is FAQ split by printings anyway? Why not a single list of errata that starts from page 1 and goes to the end of the CRB in order regardless of printing? These aren't patch notes so I'm not sure why they're being organized as if they were. I play Warhammer and there are errata/FAQs all the time and they're organized by things like page number, not the date they decided to clarify.

I'm sure someone will be curious about which changes happened when but you could use a superscript number at the end of each change indicating the printing or something.

Well, it does feel more like the FAQ page is more like patch notes. The comprehensive list of all changes is Archives of Nethys or the actual reprinted rulebooks.

Larger than one, as I hadn't heard of any issue from people I play with and in fact didn't know anyone had issues until I heard of it here. So, I have the opposite experience from you: I'm only looking at/playing PF2 though.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Your group and people in your circle may not be using the faq, or they may be using it and just not telling you they're having a difficult time. Regardless, many people here and elsewhere on the forums are saying (and have been saying) they have issues accessing the FaQs. This is why people have identified it as a problem.

An accessible FaQ should be usable for all people, not some people in some groups.

As to the 'trick', it's just noticing that ctrl f only looks at spoiler text when it's opened, so you have to open them if you want to search them. It's not elegant but it works.

My experience hasn't matched that. I can use ctrl-f with all of the spoiler blocks collapsed (in PF2 FAQ). The browser shows x/n matches in the search result bar, but I can't see any of them or know which block it is in since they are still closed and hidden. I have to open the spoiler blocks in order for highlighting and auto-scrolling to work.

So it technically works for me - it just isn't useful.

Graystone wrote:

Larger than one, as I hadn't heard of any issue from people I play with and in fact didn't know anyone had issues until I heard of it here. So, I have the opposite experience from you: I'm only looking at/playing PF2 though.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Your group and people in your circle may not be using the faq, or they may be using it and just not telling you they're having a difficult time. Regardless, many people here and elsewhere on the forums are saying (and have been saying) they have issues accessing the FaQs. This is why people have identified it as a problem.

An accessible FaQ should be usable for all people, not some people in some groups.

Dude, why are you being so combative? I NEVER EVER inferred people weren't having issues: I just said me and my groups weren't finding an issue with it: full stop. Did I say no one else was having issues? No. Did I say I had issues when I went to the FAQ he seemed to be using? Yes. So please dial it back a bit.

As to other people I play with and the FAQ: At least 2 groups talked about the FAQ's at various times [one at the game start] and it seems unlikely to me that they wouldn't mention that they couldn't access them from the FAQ page. If they did, they didn't mention it.

graystone wrote:

As to the 'trick', it's just noticing that ctrl f only looks at spoiler text when it's opened, so you have to open them if you want to search them. It's not elegant but it works.

My experience hasn't matched that. I can use ctrl-f with all of the spoiler blocks collapsed (in PF2 FAQ). The browser shows x/n matches in the search result bar, but I can't see any of them or know which block it is in since they are still closed and hidden. I have to open the spoiler blocks in order for highlighting and auto-scrolling to work.

Then your experience matches mine: I open all the spoilers from the bottom up, then ctrl f.

So it technically works for me - it just isn't useful.

Can't you search with the spoilers open?

Can't you search with the spoilers open?

Yes. If I manually open all of the spoiler blocks, then ctrl-f works reasonably well... assuming I already know at least one of the words for the errata entry that I am looking for.

graystone wrote:

Can't you search with the spoilers open?

Yes. If I manually open all of the spoiler blocks, then ctrl-f works reasonably well... assuming I already know at least one of the words for the errata entry that I am looking for.

Ok, we're on the same page then, though I'd count it as usable. I'd have a hard time finding something in Nethys too if I'm not sure of a word to search for.

Regardless, many people here and elsewhere on the forums are saying (and have been saying) they have issues accessing the FaQs. This is why people have identified it as a problem.

I'm not sure what the hostility is about. You said you had trouble with a page, graystone said they didn't.

Turning around and accusing them of ableism and acting like they're trying to erase you over it is kind of over the top.

I wanted to point everyone to an Accessible copy of the FAQ that was put together by Doug.

Doug's guides have been pretty neat. I do wish that the main site was as accessible.

I would like to advocate to everyone in this thread to take a deep breath, and walk away for an hour. The conversation has gotten heated, and I do not think that it needs to be.

Then I would love it if someone would link to an accessiblity thread about the FAQ in the website forum where we can all comment. I think that it is important that Paizo change the FAQ's accessibility, but no one who has been commenting here has the power currently to do this.

Hmm

You're right HMM I deleted my other post.

My personal efforts for accessibility and usability in the Pathfinder community speak volumes more than anything I can say further.

Probably a dumb question. But why is FAQ split by printings anyway

I'm just guessing but my assumption is that it reduces how much one has to sort through based on the volume they own. A cumulative errata might be easier for me, as I have a 1st printing, but more of a pain for someone who owns a 3rd printing and only needs to see the changes from 3rd to 4th.

IMO it would be easiest to have a cumulative errata that is filterable, so I could just enter my edition and see only the errata subsequent to that.

Doug has made a new FAQ Accessibility Thread.

Please comment (whether opinions or support) on better accessibility for FAQs & Errata!

Thanks,
Hmm

(...) Should Paizo Staff read this, the first chapter in the PDF seem to have not the correct font or font-thickness. Looks like everything is written in "bold". It seems to be correct starting wit chapter 2. This was also the case in the 3rd printing.

Seconding this. It is very uncomfortable for my eyes when reading...

Even before I saw this, I'd been thinking of house-ruling something with ancestries and ability adjustments like "pick between one of two stat bonuses, get a freebie of your choice." (Note that my explanation of stat penalties, or at least mental ones, had typically been "cultural de-emphasis of associated skills" in the past. For example, to use some of my own homebrew ancestries: ki'vali tend to be gruff because they're a Proud Warrior Culture with militaristic leanings, while feiyin in their likeliest homeland are often conditioned to be weak-willed to keep them submissive.) Liking this, though.

Hopefully with increased frequency of errata we can get a 3 boost / 1 flaw option. Oh, and also remove the icky bio-essentialist belief that Dwarves are slow and that Elves are quick.

Icky? Why so?