3 ms·

I share your sentiments. Anybody building a tool that could conceivably be used for work purposes has a moral impetus to treat accessibility as a first-class ci

• LoSboccacc 8y ago
  > The only reason not to is greed while accessibility is important this extremisation is a little rich under a post of a literally free tool.
  • vinceguidry 8y ago
    You're ignoring the preceding qualifiers. A tool that can be used for work, and a profit motive.
    • LoSboccacc 8y ago
      that's a non sequitur. a free tool doesn't have a profit motive and a company using the tool for profit doesn't attach a profit motive to the tool itself.
      • HeWhoLurksLate 8y ago
        But they have an interest in their "free" tools being around the next day, don't they? Otherwise they have to either do it the "old way" or find a replacement, both of which cost time. At $100,000 a year per 40-hour-work-week developer, a team of 5 developers costs $240 an hour. That's a lot to lose because your tools disappeared. Analogous to physical work, consider what getting a new tool that's slightly different does to your muscle memory- there's an inherent value in having long-lasting tools, even if they're free.
• yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  > the profit motive should be there > The only reason not to is greed. This seems contradictory? If there's a profit to be had, then greed would demand that it be taken.