4 ms·

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. Sur

by 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

by edent 8y ago

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