3 ms·

I would have no problem if this were only a moral obligation, but it seems like it's becoming more and more a legal obligation. Legal obligations that require a

I would have no problem if this were only a moral obligation, but it seems like it's becoming more and more a legal obligation. Legal obligations that require a developer add something frustrate me, because they essentially crush people doing things for fun.

vanadium 8y ago
It's also a business obligation, in my opinion, because 1) an increasing percentage of the population has some form of disability, and 2) not accommodating them has a bottom-line business impact. There's a moral, legal, and business obligation to serve your product in an inclusive manner. We're working to get select developers IAAP (International Association of Accessibility Professionals) certified on my team. On the legal front, see also Gomez v. GNC: https://www.levelaccess.com/federal-court-decision-gomez-v-gnc-highlights-importance-choosing-experienced-accessibility-expert/ https://www.levelaccess.com/federal-court-decision-gomez-v-g...
DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
I'd say, when people build stuff for free, or in a way that it just barely covers the costs, it's even morally wrong to expect them to make their stuff more accessible. They're already doing others a favor and asking for even more is just a sign of entitlement.
- morpheuskafka 8y ago
  I think that the baseline more obligation is not to be exclusive, i.e. whether you are working for free or not, you have an obligation not to design tools that actively further harm to a group, demean or discriminate against a protected group, etc. The duty to be actively inclusive scales with commercial reasonability. For example, it would be reasonable to expect a small business to read aloud a menu to someone with a visual disability, at minimal cost. By contrast, it would be reasonable to expect a transnational company like Walmart to spend significant sums making stores wheelchair accessible. Someone who does something for free, or for incidental income, should only have to do very low time/cost accommodations.

vanadium 8y ago

It's also a business obligation, in my opinion, because 1) an increasing percentage of the population has some form of disability, and 2) not accommodating them has a bottom-line business impact. There's a moral, legal, and business obligation to serve your product in an inclusive manner. We're working to get select developers IAAP (International Association of Accessibility Professionals) certified on my team. On the legal front, see also Gomez v. GNC: https://www.levelaccess.com/federal-court-decision-gomez-v-gnc-highlights-importance-choosing-experienced-accessibility-expert/ https://www.levelaccess.com/federal-court-decision-gomez-v-g...

DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago

I'd say, when people build stuff for free, or in a way that it just barely covers the costs, it's even morally wrong to expect them to make their stuff more accessible. They're already doing others a favor and asking for even more is just a sign of entitlement.

morpheuskafka 8y ago
I think that the baseline more obligation is not to be exclusive, i.e. whether you are working for free or not, you have an obligation not to design tools that actively further harm to a group, demean or discriminate against a protected group, etc. The duty to be actively inclusive scales with commercial reasonability. For example, it would be reasonable to expect a small business to read aloud a menu to someone with a visual disability, at minimal cost. By contrast, it would be reasonable to expect a transnational company like Walmart to spend significant sums making stores wheelchair accessible. Someone who does something for free, or for incidental income, should only have to do very low time/cost accommodations.