3 ms·

>It turns out that they couldn’t. And the answer to why they couldn’t came from a totally unexpected place. The American’s with Disabilities Act. I wonder ho

by wyager 10y ago

>It turns out that they couldn’t. And the answer to why they couldn’t came from a totally unexpected place. The American’s with Disabilities Act. I wonder how much this act has cost society. Just in this particular instance, let's say keeping this chip on PC motherboards adds 5¢ to the cost of each motherboard. Multiply by a billion PCs sold in the last 10 years (The actual number is higher, but maybe some don't have the chip. Macs and stuff.). Did having the PC beep provide $50M worth of utility to society over the last ten years? I doubt it. $50M of research into e.g. sight restoration technology would also likely have been more useful to blind people in general.

temac 10y ago
Nowadays that's not an actual chip anymore, but part of another (probably the superio that handles tons of legacy pc stuff in one chip). However it nevertheless needs dedicated hardware, in the form on a trace or a wire going to a more proper sound subsystem (or even a dedicated buzzer)
huskyr 10y ago
You're making lots of wrong assumptions and insulting remarks here. This act is not just about 'blind people', but people with all kinds of disabilities. If you read the article, you'll see that Beep() API is used for assistive technologies, which can be anything, from devices for motor impairment to deafness. Not everyone who is disabled is blind. If this API would have suddenly disappeared the 'cost to society' would have been much higher than the assumed figure of $50M that you're stating here. Imagine if you'd wake up one day and your mouse doesn't work anymore because it's no longer compatible. That's how important assistive technologies can be to disabled people. Furthermore, the suggestion that blindness can be 'fixed' by donating $50M to 'sight restoration technology' (whatever that is) grossly underestimates the complexities and variety of sight related disabilities. Vision is not a switch you can turn on again with an operation.
- wyager 10y ago
  I'm well aware of the ADA and its effects. There was recently a good report about legal trolls suing small businesses for minor parking space violations under the ADA, so I took the chance to refresh my memory on the act. >Imagine if you'd wake up one day and your mouse doesn't work anymore because it's no longer compatible. Huh? This analogy doesn't make any sense. Things aren't compatible because of the ADA; they're compatible thanks to standards bodies and market pressure. > That's how important assistive technologies can be to disabled people. Only a small fraction of people need the beeper, and from what I understand based on a presentation from a deaf coworker a few years back, the best assistive technologies are those that emerged naturally, not from archaic ADA-imposed requirements. She cited OS X's accessibility features. >Vision is not a switch you can turn on again with an operation. I'm aware. I never said $50M in research would cure blindness; I said it would do more for blind people than a little beeper in the PC chassis. $50M is also quite a conservative estimate.

by wyager 10y ago

temac 10y ago

Nowadays that's not an actual chip anymore, but part of another (probably the superio that handles tons of legacy pc stuff in one chip). However it nevertheless needs dedicated hardware, in the form on a trace or a wire going to a more proper sound subsystem (or even a dedicated buzzer)

huskyr 10y ago

You're making lots of wrong assumptions and insulting remarks here. This act is not just about 'blind people', but people with all kinds of disabilities. If you read the article, you'll see that Beep() API is used for assistive technologies, which can be anything, from devices for motor impairment to deafness. Not everyone who is disabled is blind. If this API would have suddenly disappeared the 'cost to society' would have been much higher than the assumed figure of $50M that you're stating here. Imagine if you'd wake up one day and your mouse doesn't work anymore because it's no longer compatible. That's how important assistive technologies can be to disabled people. Furthermore, the suggestion that blindness can be 'fixed' by donating $50M to 'sight restoration technology' (whatever that is) grossly underestimates the complexities and variety of sight related disabilities. Vision is not a switch you can turn on again with an operation.

wyager 10y ago
I'm well aware of the ADA and its effects. There was recently a good report about legal trolls suing small businesses for minor parking space violations under the ADA, so I took the chance to refresh my memory on the act. >Imagine if you'd wake up one day and your mouse doesn't work anymore because it's no longer compatible. Huh? This analogy doesn't make any sense. Things aren't compatible because of the ADA; they're compatible thanks to standards bodies and market pressure. > That's how important assistive technologies can be to disabled people. Only a small fraction of people need the beeper, and from what I understand based on a presentation from a deaf coworker a few years back, the best assistive technologies are those that emerged naturally, not from archaic ADA-imposed requirements. She cited OS X's accessibility features. >Vision is not a switch you can turn on again with an operation. I'm aware. I never said $50M in research would cure blindness; I said it would do more for blind people than a little beeper in the PC chassis. $50M is also quite a conservative estimate.