3 ms·

Why the hell would you jump to this conclusion? Any software professional knows just as well as I that these concerns are specialized and people with a particu

Why the hell would you jump to this conclusion? Any software professional knows just as well as I that these concerns are specialized and people with a particular interest in complying with these special use cases are paid for their particular interest and capability in worrying about, and complying with, regulations within the realm of assistive access. Most software developers think about getting their software to work correctly, not about edge-cases dealing with the UI for tiny, specific disenfranchised groups of people. EDIT: Even if we were just to stick to the US, only 2.7 million people use a wheelchair here. That's 0.9 percent of the US population. That's really, REALLY freakin' specialized. Don't stoop to heaving virtue my way when the facts hurt. EDIT#2: Perhaps you can quantify your ridiculous statement by telling me how the developer of this [0] application should be punished for not building assistive access into his GPLv2 project, and how he should have & could have actually done so. [0] https://github.com/falkTX/Carla https://github.com/falkTX/Carla

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> Most software developers think about getting their software to work correctly, not about edge-cases dealing with the UI for tiny, specific disenfranchised groups of people. The whole point of the ADA (and its counterparts in some other developed nations), is that building solutions that are also usable by people with disabilities should no longer be an edge case, but the default.
- AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
  I agree, that > building solutions that are also usable by people with disabilities should no longer be an edge case, but the default. should be the thing we pursue. This will happen when people who care about assistive access technologies finally make solutions that are easy to implement into normal contemporary software development workflow. Online video had the same challenges but due to corporate and commercial interests we solved that problem already, arguably a much harder problem to solve than assistive access. I know because for many years I worked on precisely these kinds of assistive access concerns in the audiobooks industry. I am certain that we are not there yet, but we will get there one day. BUT... > The whole point of the ADA None of this is the point of the ADA. The only "whole point" of the ADA is to regulate particular aspects to certain commercial and government services/products.
yellowapple 7y ago
> Why the hell would you jump to this conclusion? Why wouldn't I? Your argument appears to boil down to "well not caring about blind users is the status quo, so no reason to change it". I can guarantee you there were similar attitudes among construction workers and architects before wheelchair ramps became mandatory in various jurisdictions (and hell, even after): "well the vast majority of people wanting to enter this building have working legs, so why should I be assed to build a ramp when a staircase will do?". If you can't be assed to write software that's accessible to blind people, then that is - by definition - discrimination against them. It's not even hard to make a web page reasonably accessible; plain HTML (with or without CSS) is typically perfectly usable with a screen reader, and it's only when that gets mucked up by a tangled mess of DOM-mangling JS (or Flash or Java or Silverlight once upon a time) that anyone needs to actually put any significant effort into accessibility.
- AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
  The person who coded this cool and nifty website [0] is discriminating against someone for not making a webapp that a screen reader can parse adequately? https://www.adaptivemobile.com/spamglobe/ https://www.adaptivemobile.com/spamglobe/ If so, you are - by definition - a jerk. Worse, you think this kind of site would be in violation of the ADA and would subject the creators of the site to legal repercussions and/or litigation? If so, you are - by definition - insane. Not to mention, illiterate. More likely, you are not either of these things, but you are instead blinded by an exaggerated sense of concern/worry over this issue, largely impacted upon you by the media you consume. As someone who suffers from a disability which falls under the ADA guidelines, this comes off as being incredibly stuffy, ignorant, and tonedeaf. You're not doing us any favors with your insufferable inability to detach law and life.
microtherion 7y ago
> Even if we were just to stick to the US, only 2.7 million people use a wheelchair here. Then you add people who push a stroller, pull a (personal) shopping cart, or use a walker, or walk unassisted, but can't lift their legs too high... > That's 0.9 percent of the US population. That's really, REALLY freakin' specialized. I can guarantee that 100% of the US population were unable to climb stairs at some point in their lives (except maybe for a few libertarians who emerged fully formed from Ayn Rand's forehead).
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  I love automatic door openers for those days I have to heft some big dumb package in and out of the office. ... and I'm extremely confident that without the law forcing them to, no office I ever worked in would have spent $2,200 per door on that feature, no matter how useful it is to everyone on the odd day.
  - qtplatypus 7y ago
    The curb cut effect. It turns out that accessibility features are often useful for able bodied people. One thing I like about accessible websites is that writing scrapers for them are so much easier.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago

> Most software developers think about getting their software to work correctly, not about edge-cases dealing with the UI for tiny, specific disenfranchised groups of people. The whole point of the ADA (and its counterparts in some other developed nations), is that building solutions that are also usable by people with disabilities should no longer be an edge case, but the default.

AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
I agree, that > building solutions that are also usable by people with disabilities should no longer be an edge case, but the default. should be the thing we pursue. This will happen when people who care about assistive access technologies finally make solutions that are easy to implement into normal contemporary software development workflow. Online video had the same challenges but due to corporate and commercial interests we solved that problem already, arguably a much harder problem to solve than assistive access. I know because for many years I worked on precisely these kinds of assistive access concerns in the audiobooks industry. I am certain that we are not there yet, but we will get there one day. BUT... > The whole point of the ADA None of this is the point of the ADA. The only "whole point" of the ADA is to regulate particular aspects to certain commercial and government services/products.

yellowapple 7y ago

> Why the hell would you jump to this conclusion? Why wouldn't I? Your argument appears to boil down to "well not caring about blind users is the status quo, so no reason to change it". I can guarantee you there were similar attitudes among construction workers and architects before wheelchair ramps became mandatory in various jurisdictions (and hell, even after): "well the vast majority of people wanting to enter this building have working legs, so why should I be assed to build a ramp when a staircase will do?". If you can't be assed to write software that's accessible to blind people, then that is - by definition - discrimination against them. It's not even hard to make a web page reasonably accessible; plain HTML (with or without CSS) is typically perfectly usable with a screen reader, and it's only when that gets mucked up by a tangled mess of DOM-mangling JS (or Flash or Java or Silverlight once upon a time) that anyone needs to actually put any significant effort into accessibility.

AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
The person who coded this cool and nifty website [0] is discriminating against someone for not making a webapp that a screen reader can parse adequately? https://www.adaptivemobile.com/spamglobe/ https://www.adaptivemobile.com/spamglobe/ If so, you are - by definition - a jerk. Worse, you think this kind of site would be in violation of the ADA and would subject the creators of the site to legal repercussions and/or litigation? If so, you are - by definition - insane. Not to mention, illiterate. More likely, you are not either of these things, but you are instead blinded by an exaggerated sense of concern/worry over this issue, largely impacted upon you by the media you consume. As someone who suffers from a disability which falls under the ADA guidelines, this comes off as being incredibly stuffy, ignorant, and tonedeaf. You're not doing us any favors with your insufferable inability to detach law and life.

microtherion 7y ago

> Even if we were just to stick to the US, only 2.7 million people use a wheelchair here. Then you add people who push a stroller, pull a (personal) shopping cart, or use a walker, or walk unassisted, but can't lift their legs too high... > That's 0.9 percent of the US population. That's really, REALLY freakin' specialized. I can guarantee that 100% of the US population were unable to climb stairs at some point in their lives (except maybe for a few libertarians who emerged fully formed from Ayn Rand's forehead).

shadowgovt 7y ago
I love automatic door openers for those days I have to heft some big dumb package in and out of the office. ... and I'm extremely confident that without the law forcing them to, no office I ever worked in would have spent $2,200 per door on that feature, no matter how useful it is to everyone on the odd day.
- qtplatypus 7y ago
  The curb cut effect. It turns out that accessibility features are often useful for able bodied people. One thing I like about accessible websites is that writing scrapers for them are so much easier.