5 ms·

>> You spend what's necessary > The question is not necessity, it's cost/benefit. Necessity is everything. Cost-benefit might factor in when comparing differe

>> You spend what's necessary > The question is not necessity, it's cost/benefit. Necessity is everything. Cost-benefit might factor in when comparing different options, but the cost is often very high, especially to retrofit accommodations onto existing systems, when compared to the benefit that the general population receives from those accommodations. But we do it anyway, because we live in a civilized society that recognizes not everybody is the same. Comparing it to armored houses is stupid, because while armored houses might be sufficient for security, they are certainly not necessary. The threat model imposes a ceiling on any benefits: anything beyond that is not necessary, it's wasteful. > When it takes as much or more effort to do the accessibility as to create the product in the first place, or requires a skill set the maker doesn't normally possess. So there are two problems here. * Accessibility is like (software) security. Both should be treated as part of the process, where they are incorporated into the design from the outset. Just like security, if you try to tack on accessibility after everything is designed and built, then it takes longer to implement, costs more, and integrates poorly due to working around the existing design rather than within it, and generally less convenient/usable. * The biggest "skill" that people need is simply awareness and perspective -- not everybody is like you! Especially in software, good practices for accessibility are often reflective of generally good practices anyway. If you're slinging HTML, use semantically correct elements, put alt tags with images, label your forms and make sure they are keyboard-navigable. Are you a web developer that's never heard of ARIA? Shame on you -- you're not much of a web developer if you only cherry-pick the parts you like to use. This stuff is not hard. Again, it's less of a skill and more of a broadening of your world view to recognize that not everybody is like you, and trying to take those people into consideration. Would you build a web site and ignore IE users completely, just because you don't use IE? > The argument seems to be that disabled people shouldn't have to do something different That's not the argument at all. They do things differently all the time -- and usually it's fine, as long as the accommodation is reasonable. The gist of the article, by my reading, is that accessibility, convenience, and being environmentally friendly are often at odds with each other. The argument is not that Whole Foods has a moral imperative to offer pre-peeled oranges, just that there are certain classes of people that actually do benefit from pre-peeled oranges, while acknowledging there is an environmental impact. Disabled people are acutely aware of the externalities that their handicap imposes on society, so it is a relief when mainstream goods and practices shift towards being more accessible by default, such as supermarkets offering pre-chopped vegetables or, yes, pre-peeled oranges.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> Necessity is everything. Cost-benefit might factor in when comparing different options, but the cost is often very high, especially to retrofit accommodations onto existing systems, when compared to the benefit that the general population receives from those accommodations. But we do it anyway, because we live in a civilized society that recognizes not everybody is the same. We clearly don't do it anyway. There are plenty of things we could do that would help certain people in a big way but we don't because the cost would be prohibitive. > Would you build a web site and ignore IE users completely, just because you don't use IE? It has nothing to do with whether you use IE. It's a matter of how many other people do and how much it would cost to support them. But web development is a completely different context, because then the cost is fixed rather than per-unit. Which means, if your site is at all popular, it is worth the cost most of the time. It's basically fail fast. The first version isn't going to be particularly accessible because there is little point in doing that work if you're just going to close your doors next year. But if you succeed, now it's worth the effort to go back and do it, because 1% of a billion people can justify a lot of effort.
- jallmann 11y ago
  > There are plenty of things we could do that would help certain people in a big way but we don't because the cost would be prohibitive. We certainly can't do everything (and what we can do is subject to constraints of scale), but there are key phrases here: readily achievable, reasonable accommodation. There are a lot of things that are required that are quite expensive, and the burden for providing those is entirely on the facility, service, employer, etc. You still can't apply a strict cost-benefit analysis, because that would fail almost every time. That's what the ADA is for: to compel (necessitate!) accommodations that would not be made otherwise. Take a look at an ADA checklist sometime: http://www.adachecklist.org/doc/fullchecklist/ada-checklist.pdf http://www.adachecklist.org/doc/fullchecklist/ada-checklist.... > It's a matter of how many other people do and how much it would cost to support them. That's not the point. The point is that you're aware there are users different from yourself, so you take them into consideration. Empathy, not market share. That's what accessibility is all about. > The first version isn't going to be particularly accessible That doesn't have to be true, if you are aware of the simple things you can do to make pages more accessible. Then it's not difficult to put those in as you're building things. As I keep saying, if accessibility is incorporated into the process from the beginning, then it is much easier to ensure ongoing support. It's not hard. > it's worth the effort to go back and do it This kind of mindset is exactly the problem. Going back and re-evaluating your accessibility from scratch is a complete waste of time and resources [1]. Take an afternoon off from faffing around on HN, read up on accessible design, apply those few simple steps as you're building each page. Believe me, you'll feel a lot better about it knowing that your pages are accessible: there is something satisfying as an engineer knowing that your product is resilient and usable in various circumstances. [1] Most new public construction is required to be ADA compliant at the outset, because there are laws on the books that mandate it. Now imagine if architects didn't actually consider accessibility when designing the facility. Or if they were completely clueless about accessibility issues. That situation is unfortunately exactly what we have with software developers today -- and devs have it even easier, so there is not really an excuse not to make even a passing attempt at accessibility from the outset.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> Necessity is everything. Cost-benefit might factor in when comparing different options, but the cost is often very high, especially to retrofit accommodations onto existing systems, when compared to the benefit that the general population receives from those accommodations. But we do it anyway, because we live in a civilized society that recognizes not everybody is the same. We clearly don't do it anyway. There are plenty of things we could do that would help certain people in a big way but we don't because the cost would be prohibitive. > Would you build a web site and ignore IE users completely, just because you don't use IE? It has nothing to do with whether you use IE. It's a matter of how many other people do and how much it would cost to support them. But web development is a completely different context, because then the cost is fixed rather than per-unit. Which means, if your site is at all popular, it is worth the cost most of the time. It's basically fail fast. The first version isn't going to be particularly accessible because there is little point in doing that work if you're just going to close your doors next year. But if you succeed, now it's worth the effort to go back and do it, because 1% of a billion people can justify a lot of effort.

jallmann 11y ago
> There are plenty of things we could do that would help certain people in a big way but we don't because the cost would be prohibitive. We certainly can't do everything (and what we can do is subject to constraints of scale), but there are key phrases here: readily achievable, reasonable accommodation. There are a lot of things that are required that are quite expensive, and the burden for providing those is entirely on the facility, service, employer, etc. You still can't apply a strict cost-benefit analysis, because that would fail almost every time. That's what the ADA is for: to compel (necessitate!) accommodations that would not be made otherwise. Take a look at an ADA checklist sometime: http://www.adachecklist.org/doc/fullchecklist/ada-checklist.pdf http://www.adachecklist.org/doc/fullchecklist/ada-checklist.... > It's a matter of how many other people do and how much it would cost to support them. That's not the point. The point is that you're aware there are users different from yourself, so you take them into consideration. Empathy, not market share. That's what accessibility is all about. > The first version isn't going to be particularly accessible That doesn't have to be true, if you are aware of the simple things you can do to make pages more accessible. Then it's not difficult to put those in as you're building things. As I keep saying, if accessibility is incorporated into the process from the beginning, then it is much easier to ensure ongoing support. It's not hard. > it's worth the effort to go back and do it This kind of mindset is exactly the problem. Going back and re-evaluating your accessibility from scratch is a complete waste of time and resources [1]. Take an afternoon off from faffing around on HN, read up on accessible design, apply those few simple steps as you're building each page. Believe me, you'll feel a lot better about it knowing that your pages are accessible: there is something satisfying as an engineer knowing that your product is resilient and usable in various circumstances. [1] Most new public construction is required to be ADA compliant at the outset, because there are laws on the books that mandate it. Now imagine if architects didn't actually consider accessibility when designing the facility. Or if they were completely clueless about accessibility issues. That situation is unfortunately exactly what we have with software developers today -- and devs have it even easier, so there is not really an excuse not to make even a passing attempt at accessibility from the outset.