6 ms·

So just because this specific person has an issue that doesn't allow them to use a Chromebook they should make a blanket statement that they are inaccessible? I

by jareds 8y ago

So just because this specific person has an issue that doesn't allow them to use a Chromebook they should make a blanket statement that they are inaccessible? I'm totally blind and have had a Chromebook for several years. I got it as a gift because I was interested in its accessibility. I've seen Google make large strides in accessibility in the couple years I've owned it. It went from barely usable to something I am comfortable using as my only computer if I don't need to do any programming. Just because something may not be fully accessible to someone does not mean we should ignore all the work companies have done to move accessibility from nonexistent to decent.

edent 8y ago
I'm extremely glad that Chromebooks are accessible to you. But they are not accessible to me. In a similar way to saying a subtitled movie isn't acessible. Sure, it meets the needs of the Deaf community - but not people with low/no vision. Google have done some great things in accessibility - and I regularly work with them. But this specific issue has remained unresolved for too long now.
- jareds 8y ago
  Have you contacted Google accessibility directly about this instead of writing an angry blog post and hoping it gets enough traction that someone who works at google notices? https://support.google.com/accessibility/answer/7641084?visit_id=636821183286557811-2874298814&rd=1#disability-support https://support.google.com/accessibility/answer/7641084?visi...
  - edent 8y ago
    I've contacted them in public and in private. Over five years. Nothing has helped.
  - opencl 8y ago
    Clearly several people working at Google have already noticed because they replied to the report on the issue tracker about it, and they all said that implementing this would be a good idea.
    - magicalist 8y ago
      > Clearly several people working at Google have already noticed because they replied to the report on the issue tracker about it Those were from before this blog post (most recent was December). Sounds like the problem is prioritization, not convincing them it's a good idea.
  - gnu8 8y ago
    As far as I know, angry blogging is the only way to contact google directly.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > In a similar way to saying a subtitled movie isn't acessible. Sure, it meets the needs of the Deaf community - but not people with low/no vision. Is accessibility generally treated in such a binary sense? If something isn't accessible to everyone, it isn't accessible? (Genuine question. Either answer would be valid. I'd prefer to know how it's used in common parlance.)
  - pgeorgi 8y ago
    > Is accessibility generally treated in such a binary sense? It's not, otherwise closed captioned videos wouldn't be released without audio description tracks (and vice versa).
  - edent 8y ago
    The basis of solidarity is "an injury to one of us is an injury to all of us." If you look at, for example, the WCAG rules on accessibility, you'll see that there are various levels of conformance. Accessibility isn't just about blind people, or deaf people, or people with tremors, or people with cognative impairments. It is about all of us. You and me. One day, you will be old. Your eyes won't be as good as they were and your joints will be stiff. Then someone will tell you that Windows 2038 is accessible because it is voice controlled. That's nice for you, but not much help for someone who has lost their voice. Sorry, I'm rambling. Accessibility means including everyone.
    - luiscleto 8y ago
      That sounds incredibly utopic. Anyone at any time can have a completely new disability which renders any product unusable to them. It is not reasonable to expect companies to have a moral obligation to accommodate every single human being on the planet. Nor would it be economically viable for many products. (disclaimer: that this does not mean I think an effort should not even be made. But there will always be outliers as that is the painful reality we live in. I do think OP is justified in their complaint and wanting more accessibility. But I don't think it is their "right" to expect that demand to be met)
      - 8y ago
kuhhk 8y ago
Hello jareds. I'm curious what you use for programming, since you mentioned you don't use your Chromebook for that.
- jareds 8y ago
  I use Windows 10 machines and make heavy use of WSL. I use Eclipse as my IDE when doing Java work. I use Jaws for Windows as my primary screen reading software and NVDA occasionally for things it handles better then Jaws. I used to own a Mac but booted it into Windows most of the time once WSL became a thing. In my limited experience the Mac is OK for general computing from an accessibility perspective but does not offer the screen reader customizability and efficiency that Windows does. https://www.freedomscientific.com/Products/Blindness/JAWS https://www.freedomscientific.com/Products/Blindness/JAWS https://www.nvaccess.org/ https://www.nvaccess.org/
groxr 8y ago
No, it would not be considered accessible as defined in ISO 9241-171 Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Guidance on software accessibility, and further it may be in conflict with the recently passed European Accessibility Act.

by jareds 8y ago

edent 8y ago

I'm extremely glad that Chromebooks are accessible to you. But they are not accessible to me. In a similar way to saying a subtitled movie isn't acessible. Sure, it meets the needs of the Deaf community - but not people with low/no vision. Google have done some great things in accessibility - and I regularly work with them. But this specific issue has remained unresolved for too long now.

jareds 8y ago
Have you contacted Google accessibility directly about this instead of writing an angry blog post and hoping it gets enough traction that someone who works at google notices? https://support.google.com/accessibility/answer/7641084?visit_id=636821183286557811-2874298814&rd=1#disability-support https://support.google.com/accessibility/answer/7641084?visi...
- edent 8y ago
  I've contacted them in public and in private. Over five years. Nothing has helped.
- opencl 8y ago
  Clearly several people working at Google have already noticed because they replied to the report on the issue tracker about it, and they all said that implementing this would be a good idea.
  - magicalist 8y ago
    > Clearly several people working at Google have already noticed because they replied to the report on the issue tracker about it Those were from before this blog post (most recent was December). Sounds like the problem is prioritization, not convincing them it's a good idea.
- gnu8 8y ago
  As far as I know, angry blogging is the only way to contact google directly.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> In a similar way to saying a subtitled movie isn't acessible. Sure, it meets the needs of the Deaf community - but not people with low/no vision. Is accessibility generally treated in such a binary sense? If something isn't accessible to everyone, it isn't accessible? (Genuine question. Either answer would be valid. I'd prefer to know how it's used in common parlance.)
- pgeorgi 8y ago
  > Is accessibility generally treated in such a binary sense? It's not, otherwise closed captioned videos wouldn't be released without audio description tracks (and vice versa).
- edent 8y ago
  The basis of solidarity is "an injury to one of us is an injury to all of us." If you look at, for example, the WCAG rules on accessibility, you'll see that there are various levels of conformance. Accessibility isn't just about blind people, or deaf people, or people with tremors, or people with cognative impairments. It is about all of us. You and me. One day, you will be old. Your eyes won't be as good as they were and your joints will be stiff. Then someone will tell you that Windows 2038 is accessible because it is voice controlled. That's nice for you, but not much help for someone who has lost their voice. Sorry, I'm rambling. Accessibility means including everyone.
  - luiscleto 8y ago
    That sounds incredibly utopic. Anyone at any time can have a completely new disability which renders any product unusable to them. It is not reasonable to expect companies to have a moral obligation to accommodate every single human being on the planet. Nor would it be economically viable for many products. (disclaimer: that this does not mean I think an effort should not even be made. But there will always be outliers as that is the painful reality we live in. I do think OP is justified in their complaint and wanting more accessibility. But I don't think it is their "right" to expect that demand to be met)
    - 8y ago

kuhhk 8y ago

Hello jareds. I'm curious what you use for programming, since you mentioned you don't use your Chromebook for that.

jareds 8y ago
I use Windows 10 machines and make heavy use of WSL. I use Eclipse as my IDE when doing Java work. I use Jaws for Windows as my primary screen reading software and NVDA occasionally for things it handles better then Jaws. I used to own a Mac but booted it into Windows most of the time once WSL became a thing. In my limited experience the Mac is OK for general computing from an accessibility perspective but does not offer the screen reader customizability and efficiency that Windows does. https://www.freedomscientific.com/Products/Blindness/JAWS https://www.freedomscientific.com/Products/Blindness/JAWS https://www.nvaccess.org/ https://www.nvaccess.org/

groxr 8y ago

No, it would not be considered accessible as defined in ISO 9241-171 Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Guidance on software accessibility, and further it may be in conflict with the recently passed European Accessibility Act.