4 ms·

I considered them, but blind enough to appreciate visual art but too blind to use a webpage seems like a rather narrow group to me. It's one of those things whe

by esyir 7y ago

I considered them, but blind enough to appreciate visual art but too blind to use a webpage seems like a rather narrow group to me. It's one of those things where I would very much need evidence accept.

foldr 7y ago
>I considered them, By which you mean, you decided without actually asking any of them or doing any investigation that a certain group of people don’t appreciate visual art. The vast majority of people using screen readers have some degree of vision. I would not assume that they have no appreciation of visual art. The ADA is needed because people have so many assumptions about people with disabilities that they don’t bother to verify.
- esyir 7y ago
  And I ask of you. How many are there. How large is this population. If you support regulation, give numbers to back it up. The absence of regulation is the default state, and to introduce some should require not a feel good statement, but a concrete estimate of how much impact it will have vs the potential cost. You don't need to convince me that it would make some people's life better. That could be said of any expense made on somebody's behalf. You have to show that the cost-benefit ratio makes sense.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    > You have to show that the cost-benefit ratio makes sense. Why? No one is saying that it's always a sound business idea to accommodate people with disabilities. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But not everything is about the business owner's bottom line.
  - foldr 7y ago
    It's not the government's job to figure out what blind and partially sighted people are and aren't interested in buying. Would you really support regulation that attempted to distinguish between "products blind people are interested in" and "products blind people aren't interested in"? That seems entirely unworkable. If you wish to continue making unwarranted assumptions about what blind people are interested in buying, that's your call. But the law doesn't (and shouldn't) back you up.

by esyir 7y ago

foldr 7y ago

>I considered them, By which you mean, you decided without actually asking any of them or doing any investigation that a certain group of people don’t appreciate visual art. The vast majority of people using screen readers have some degree of vision. I would not assume that they have no appreciation of visual art. The ADA is needed because people have so many assumptions about people with disabilities that they don’t bother to verify.

esyir 7y ago
And I ask of you. How many are there. How large is this population. If you support regulation, give numbers to back it up. The absence of regulation is the default state, and to introduce some should require not a feel good statement, but a concrete estimate of how much impact it will have vs the potential cost. You don't need to convince me that it would make some people's life better. That could be said of any expense made on somebody's behalf. You have to show that the cost-benefit ratio makes sense.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  > You have to show that the cost-benefit ratio makes sense. Why? No one is saying that it's always a sound business idea to accommodate people with disabilities. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But not everything is about the business owner's bottom line.
- foldr 7y ago
  It's not the government's job to figure out what blind and partially sighted people are and aren't interested in buying. Would you really support regulation that attempted to distinguish between "products blind people are interested in" and "products blind people aren't interested in"? That seems entirely unworkable. If you wish to continue making unwarranted assumptions about what blind people are interested in buying, that's your call. But the law doesn't (and shouldn't) back you up.