4 ms·

I think making all startup web applications more accessible would be a great improvement for everyone, especially techies. A webpage that’s accessible is also

by ken 7y ago

I think making all startup web applications more accessible would be a great improvement for everyone, especially techies. A webpage that’s accessible is also easier to script or remix. Why would anyone oppose this? Is the only way to get your startup off the ground to walk over visually impaired people? Restaurants have razor thin margins too but I’ve never heard of any restaurant looking to save a buck by limiting wheelchair access.

qtplatypus 7y ago
Unfortunately looking to save a buck by limiting wheelchair access is frightfully common. That's why people have to get sued under the ADA. The point of the ADA is to make violating it more expensive then complying with it.
beatgammit 7y ago
I agree, all websites should be accessible. The question, however, isn't about what websites should do, but about what websites must do, and I don't think it's morally justifiable to force a website to make their content accessible. Are we going to force Domino's to offer Braille menus? What about menus in Russian? Or large print menus and menus? No. I believe a company shouldn't be forced to accommodate everyone who may want their products, though I certainly think they should do it voluntarily. In fact, I'd support boycotts and critical press about it, but not a law.
sergiotapia 7y ago
should vs must my dude. It should be accessible, I disagree that it _must_ be accessible.
squirrelicus 7y ago
Hang on... Three points 1) Obviously accessible is better. Everyone agrees. When all cost is opportunity cost, do things that don't scale. Target your market aggressively. Cut your market to reduce your opportunity costs of getting to a revenue stream, then expand your market. 2) the more burdens you place in the market, the more you favor established players and make it more difficult and costly for startups to happen and succeed. 3) since when did not spending the time to build something for blind people equal walking over them? They're a valuable part of the market, to be sure, but come on. I can't sell a product to seeing people until i build in functionality for blind people? This is why the federal register is so large. Pointless crusades from short sighted busybodies.
SilasX 7y ago
Personally, I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of requiring this for all websites. And so pressing it on every startup feels like overreach, since many of them are much closer to "niche site" than "website for the general public." OTOH ... big sigh here. It's really, really depressing that we've reached the point where websites, and their typical toolchains, are so bloated that it's considered a burden at all to make your site accessible. HTML is basically designed to be blind-friendly! The only reason it's a noticeable burden at all is because everyone's bought into stupid patterns that make their sides so inelegant, non-functional, and meth-addled. If we use an unusually big stick to slap website conventions back into sanity, I'm probably not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.

by ken 7y ago

qtplatypus 7y ago

Unfortunately looking to save a buck by limiting wheelchair access is frightfully common. That's why people have to get sued under the ADA. The point of the ADA is to make violating it more expensive then complying with it.

beatgammit 7y ago

I agree, all websites should be accessible. The question, however, isn't about what websites should do, but about what websites must do, and I don't think it's morally justifiable to force a website to make their content accessible. Are we going to force Domino's to offer Braille menus? What about menus in Russian? Or large print menus and menus? No. I believe a company shouldn't be forced to accommodate everyone who may want their products, though I certainly think they should do it voluntarily. In fact, I'd support boycotts and critical press about it, but not a law.

sergiotapia 7y ago

should vs must my dude. It should be accessible, I disagree that it _must_ be accessible.

squirrelicus 7y ago

Hang on... Three points 1) Obviously accessible is better. Everyone agrees. When all cost is opportunity cost, do things that don't scale. Target your market aggressively. Cut your market to reduce your opportunity costs of getting to a revenue stream, then expand your market. 2) the more burdens you place in the market, the more you favor established players and make it more difficult and costly for startups to happen and succeed. 3) since when did not spending the time to build something for blind people equal walking over them? They're a valuable part of the market, to be sure, but come on. I can't sell a product to seeing people until i build in functionality for blind people? This is why the federal register is so large. Pointless crusades from short sighted busybodies.

SilasX 7y ago

Personally, I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of requiring this for all websites. And so pressing it on every startup feels like overreach, since many of them are much closer to "niche site" than "website for the general public." OTOH ... big sigh here. It's really, really depressing that we've reached the point where websites, and their typical toolchains, are so bloated that it's considered a burden at all to make your site accessible. HTML is basically designed to be blind-friendly! The only reason it's a noticeable burden at all is because everyone's bought into stupid patterns that make their sides so inelegant, non-functional, and meth-addled. If we use an unusually big stick to slap website conventions back into sanity, I'm probably not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.