None of that invalidates what your parent comment is saying. They’re not saying you should use toasts to the detriment of other options, but in addition to them. If anything, your comment reinforces the notion that redundant information is beneficial because you don’t know where the user is looking.
Yes. For example: while OP uses a magnifier, lots of other people use a screen reader. "Loading indicator disappeared" is a tricky thing to communicate clearly with audio. "Toast: save successful" is trivial.
This is something that I think a lot of people miss. There is for sure a reason why google has that toast. One shouldn't just dismiss what the big tech guys do in terms of UI because they are among those who have the most resource to spend on it, and also the most amount of users. So for them it makes a lot of sense to spend effort to cater to people with various disabilities, as there is financial profit in there for them.
For a small regional golf court chain who want to build an online tool for reserving tee times? They most definitely won't have the budget to do things entirely properly.
I was attempting to suggest toasts "are bad UX", but your points make a lot of sense. Thanks.
There was some discussion in the article and elsewhere in the thread about how a toast with an undo button could be a very useful interface pattern. It wouldn't work for me, so I would hope that UX designers that want to use toasts would also design in other means to find and execute an undo action.
For you, my comments reinforce that toasts are "good UX" when they contain redundant information. I'm warming to the idea. In parallel, for me, this discussion is reinforcing my intuition that "actions and feedback as close as possible to the area of interaction" should be considered the primary vector.
