@26
Try this and get back to us, and you'll come away understanding why we're telling you this can't be done.

@28
Yes. Which is what I've said. But you would be amazed how fast this turns into asking the sighted person to do it for you.  Got to check the site on all combinations of the following:

Windows+Firefox, Windows+Edge, Windows+Chrome, Windows+Internet Explorer (arguably), Linux+Firefox, Linux+Chrome, Mac+Safari, Mac+Firefox, Mac+Chrome, iOS+Safari, iOS+Firefox (arguably), Android+Chrome, Android+Firefox (arguably).

And you really want multiple screen sizes for each of the desktop platforms in that list.  Fortunately for Android the simulator is probably good enough to keep you needing a lot of different Android tablets.

Anything short of this level of testing and checking and it's going to look bad for someone.  And do notice the size point--You really really need proper constraints these days as well.

@23
Hmm... If you take two people, one blind and one sighted and have them look at a portrait in their respective ways, the sighted person will likely remark on the overlay of color and perspective visually. The blind person will likely appreciate the texture, outlines, description, or sound of the portrait via sonfier. Both people are experiencing the exact same thing,  but in different ways. The fact that a blind person doesn't experience the portrait visually doesn't mean the sensory experiences they have can't translate to creating work that can similarly be appreciated by the sighted, because again, they are experiencing different aspects of the same thing. My point here is when we talk about a shared visual experience, what we should really be saying is a 'shared experience', expressed through one or more sensory modes, ie: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic.

There are blind painters whom by sighted standards are [pretty good], and devised their own approaches to shape, form and color selection, or exhibits of blind photographers like [Sights Unseen]. When I first released BrushTone, it took only a day or two for people to make some rather decent pixel art, color appropriate art no less. So I know people can do it, but the techniques and guides used by sighted people who experience the medium in one way are likely to be less effective for someone who experiences it in another, even if the two may overlap in their final result. Its not perfect, but its a start.

Frontend development though is a bit of an odd medium to be debating artistic rendition when I think about it, if only because of how fluid it can be. A sites content and function are usually the core aspects typically with aesthetics accentuating them, though other aspects of the design can include analytics, monetization, and behavioral psychology for retention and click through based on the model. Other than the technical implementation aspects, that can be a fairly complex affair that doesn't lend well to copy/pasting or surface analysis. But then again some people do go with just two colors and let their content do the talking for them, like anything it depends on the application, and for all the design, metrics, and analytics, they still can't predict what will or won't get market appeal. Do I think people can make an appealing site? Sure, but other than riding on its own merits there are other less obvious aspects to take into consideration than code and artistic aesthetics, and the nature of such sites can be fleeting. It could be interesting to look into and write up abit about the different aspects of it, though some of that may already be covered in the monetization model articles I posted a bit ago by [Ramin] [Shokrizade].

@31
While sensory substitution may make up for some things in limited contexts, I will concede only once we actually have blind frontend devs.  You can't get the kind of resolution necessary out of any of that stuff.

Also: if you have vision for a while you get some of this experience, if you're doing art you can just shrug and say that it's art and it looks however you want it to, a quick look at articles (as I don't have the time to watch videos right now) suggests that mostly those people also didn't use theory to do what they did. So my points stand.

but I do think experience is really worth highlighting here--even if you have a sensory substitution device you'd need to spend a hell of a lot of time looking at frontends to even be able to reason out things that sighted people get on an intuitive level, and so far as I'm aware none of them can do color and shading, and again: resolution is a problem.

@32
You don't know enough to know what you don't know on this topic. The sorts of things @30 is bringing up are the frontend hello world equivalent. You don't get to just water this down to a "basic design".  What you want to water it down to is no design at all.  The kinds of things in @30 are the kinds of things that sighted people get in an hour or two of work.