> the repository languages used to be at the top center of the page

This is not an accessibility issue.

> The stars and other top bar links are off centered

This is not an accessibility issue.

> followers are now on the other side of the screen

This is not an accessibility issue.

You having different preferences has nothing to do with accessibility.

> I already explained in another comment why it's not accessible

You've explained why you don't like it, not why it's any less accessible by the definition that you're choosing to use.

What is it with this dictionary language policing?

How about you actually discuss the topic instead of trying to make this an issue about dictionary definitions.

You seem to be smart enough to realize that I'm not referring to disability accessibility, so why don't you focus on the actual topic instead of definitions?

Tell me why the new design is better when I can't see the repository languages without additional input and mental effort, if you want to contribute to the discussion.

"Accessibility" has a special meaning in design/development. It's as you've said "The new GitHub website is less performant" because you cannot access the data as fast as before. It's confusing, and that's why you're facing "dictionary language policing".

From "web accessibility" perspective (which does not only focus on disabilities), none of your points are "valid". From UX perspective, it may be a totally different thing.

You answer(s) were rather condemning, hence noone seems to be willing to participate with you in a constructive debate. But let me give a try:

- "languages are not at the top anymore" - I almost never look for the project languages. If I'm opening a specific project, I usually already know what language it is using. If I'm searching for a project, I will use a filter. For me, the change is perfectly fine.

- "stars and tabs off-centered" - I agree, it looks strange. Not a huge thing for me, though.

As with _any_ redesign, there will _always_ be an initial pushback. But I personally mostly like the new redesign.

> "Accessibility" has a special meaning in design/development

Side note: The meaning doesn't change because we talk about a different space. Access is access is access. If we ever apply the word differently, it's just because we're focusing on different aspects of access.

But that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that OP is whining about things they don't like while pretending that their taste has anything to do with _any_ definition of accessibility and then getting defensive about it.

Like you, I also think that de-prioritizing the languages was a positive change. And yet it's OP's very first complaint under the guise of losing access. Like they'd been wronged or something.

Calling the new design "awful", "awkward", and "less accessible" over really petty marginal shit like stars, followers, and languages without recognizing what was gained as a result (latest release!) or the subjectivity of taste feels like a real "I demand to speak to your manager!" moment.

Well, I'm tempted to setup my own self hosted git repository now, because I really don't like the way it looks and how the information is organized.

Having the latest release on the side is not really a gain, it should be at the top center, not on the side bar. I really prefer the way it was before with a bar having the license and releases and so on. They could have just added the release number there instead of making a terrible layout.

I imagine some are going to be displeased by the layout changes but I'm not convinced it's less accessible. I found it to be easier to navigate than the old layout.

You say less accessibility, but is there any actual evidence behind this or is this your opinion? The argument you are making seems entirely based upon your opinion.

In the context of design, “accessible” usually has a specific meaning of “able to be used by people with disabilities”. For example, a design might put alt text on images to be accessible to blind users, or make buttons big and easy to click to be accessible to users with motor control problems.

You seem to be using “accessible” just to mean “has good design”, which will confuse people.

Actually, the "disability" variant of the definition is at the bottom of the list in the dictionary entry for it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accessible

Usually, the word accessible means "capable of being reached"

In this case, I mean that my eyes cannot immediately reach to the repository languages because they are beyond the bottom of my screen, thus requiring extra input to reach.

Additionally, it's an awkward place, requiring a bit of mental strain to reach the repository languages. The original layout was more accessible and natural, because it was immediately visible at the top center, requiring no additional mental effort or input.

The dictionary’s order of meanings is a poor authority for determining the meaning of a word in a certain context. For example, if you’re reading a geology research paper that repeatedly mentions “cleavage”, you should interpret that word to mean “the splitting of rocks or crystals in a preferred plane or direction”, even though that’s the last definition of “cleavage” in the dictionary. Similarly, if someone is talking about design and using the word “accessibility”, the disability-related meaning of the word becomes the most likely meaning, even though that meaning is used in a small fraction of all English text.

I do see why the normal meaning of “accessible” is appropriate here – you aren’t able to visually access the information as quickly. In this case I would use terms like “readable” or “information-dense” to avoid confusion.

I like the style/iconography change but I hate the full width layout for the header. On a 27" screen you now have to look left for the tabs and all the way to the right to see number of stars. Before you could instantly see the count of issues/stars to know popular a repository is by looking directly in the center of the screen, now information feels unnecessarily scattered.