3 ms·

>You're not advocating for a bold, artistic world when you talk about engineering things to pointlessly exclude people. This world already exists. You're delus

>You're not advocating for a bold, artistic world when you talk about engineering things to pointlessly exclude people. This world already exists. You're delusional if it doesn't. I use the word cruel, but you must know that cruel = reality. That's all I'm saying. 99% of the world is not designed for deaf people or blind people. There are arbitrary restrictions on certain things but this is reality and it's not going to change because engineering everything to account for these people come with an engineering cost. It is not "pointlessly excluding," it's just not worth the engineering cost. But you know this. Any person is aware of this and the reality of the world. There is zero need to call it "pointlessly excluding" that's just a manipulative way of advocating your agenda. >And I don't know anyone who would seriously claim that the Godfather is lessened as an artistic expression just because deaf people can turn on subtitles. I don't know either. Did you or I make this claim? Perhaps nobody made this claim and your pulling this example out of nowhere to serve your agenda. You know video games don't account for blind people. This is purely out of cruelty of course, no way does it have anything to do with engineering cost. Obviously you don't know a thing about the cost of engineering mechanisms to get these games to work for blind people so that's why you didn't mention it. Of course it wasn't at all a deliberate choice not to mention the engineering cost to serve your own agenda.

feanaro 7y ago
When the other poster said "pointlessly excluding", I understood it to refer to examples such as the deep sea one, where there is an easy and straightforward way to design the page and allows it to fail gracefully. This design doesn't require more engineering effort. In fact, I'd say it's quite the contrary. It's not a coincidence that this design also increases accessibility -- it encodes the most meaning.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  You understood it in a biased way that not coincidentally supports your agenda. Clearly the topic is more general then the specific example.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    Clearly, and I'm not claiming it's not. I just understood that the OP was using the phrase like that. Please stop accusing everyone of being biased and having an agenda. Not that there is anything wrong with that, since everyone is biased and has an agenda (including you), but the way you're saying it makes it sound like you think it's an important component of other people's comments but not yours.
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      >Please stop accusing everyone of being biased and having an agenda. Not that there is anything wrong with that, since everyone is biased and has an agenda (including you), but the way you're saying it makes it sound like you think it's an important component of other people's comments but not yours. Ok first of all. There is no universal law that says everyone has to be biased and have an agenda. There's no logic to it. This false notion comes from the fact that most people (not all) people are biased and that when people are biased they are unaware of it. However this does not mean that people can't be unbiased or have no agenda. Second: Examine the sentence in reference to that phrase. It is literally word for word referring to "engineering" and Not a specific set of engineering projects. Literally what you are doing is inserting your own opinion onto what that "engineering" is referring to and I am taking it at face value. So I am not wrong when I say that your observations are biased. There is no accusation here, just observation of events.
      - feanaro 7y ago
        Having an agenda simply means wanting something. If you do not want anything, then you do not have an agenda. If you do, you have one. By your own admission, you want something, and if you did not, you would not be discussing in this thread. Being biased is pretty much a part of the human condition since we are limited, finite beings. Do you have all the information? Are you certain you have all the information? Have you taken into account everyone's wishes, desires, needs, analyzed every possible scenario in existence according to some yet-unspecified objective reasoning system? Then you are biased. You are missing something, you are concluding something erroneously. (using the generic you as a stand-in for anyone) Your agenda is to incorporate a pixel-level API into the web. And that's okay. Mine is to prevent the web into devolving into an opaque black box. That's okay too. As to the topic at hand, I won't try dissecting comments word for word, because I think this is a loss of time and devolves into a lot of who-said-what, when we can sidestep it by concentrating on the most charitable explanation. Reading through the thread again, I think the other poster's point was that there are many situations (not all) where designing things in the simplest and most direct way, using HTML as the semantic underpinning, leads to both less engineering effort and to a more accessible design. Specifically, I do not think he was arguing doubling or tripling a movie budget in order to make another similar movie for blind people. But then again, we weren't talking about movies. We were talking about web sites, in which the loss of HTML would lead to a net loss compared to what we have now.

feanaro 7y ago

When the other poster said "pointlessly excluding", I understood it to refer to examples such as the deep sea one, where there is an easy and straightforward way to design the page and allows it to fail gracefully. This design doesn't require more engineering effort. In fact, I'd say it's quite the contrary. It's not a coincidence that this design also increases accessibility -- it encodes the most meaning.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
You understood it in a biased way that not coincidentally supports your agenda. Clearly the topic is more general then the specific example.
- feanaro 7y ago
  Clearly, and I'm not claiming it's not. I just understood that the OP was using the phrase like that. Please stop accusing everyone of being biased and having an agenda. Not that there is anything wrong with that, since everyone is biased and has an agenda (including you), but the way you're saying it makes it sound like you think it's an important component of other people's comments but not yours.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    >Please stop accusing everyone of being biased and having an agenda. Not that there is anything wrong with that, since everyone is biased and has an agenda (including you), but the way you're saying it makes it sound like you think it's an important component of other people's comments but not yours. Ok first of all. There is no universal law that says everyone has to be biased and have an agenda. There's no logic to it. This false notion comes from the fact that most people (not all) people are biased and that when people are biased they are unaware of it. However this does not mean that people can't be unbiased or have no agenda. Second: Examine the sentence in reference to that phrase. It is literally word for word referring to "engineering" and Not a specific set of engineering projects. Literally what you are doing is inserting your own opinion onto what that "engineering" is referring to and I am taking it at face value. So I am not wrong when I say that your observations are biased. There is no accusation here, just observation of events.
    - feanaro 7y ago
      Having an agenda simply means wanting something. If you do not want anything, then you do not have an agenda. If you do, you have one. By your own admission, you want something, and if you did not, you would not be discussing in this thread. Being biased is pretty much a part of the human condition since we are limited, finite beings. Do you have all the information? Are you certain you have all the information? Have you taken into account everyone's wishes, desires, needs, analyzed every possible scenario in existence according to some yet-unspecified objective reasoning system? Then you are biased. You are missing something, you are concluding something erroneously. (using the generic you as a stand-in for anyone) Your agenda is to incorporate a pixel-level API into the web. And that's okay. Mine is to prevent the web into devolving into an opaque black box. That's okay too. As to the topic at hand, I won't try dissecting comments word for word, because I think this is a loss of time and devolves into a lot of who-said-what, when we can sidestep it by concentrating on the most charitable explanation. Reading through the thread again, I think the other poster's point was that there are many situations (not all) where designing things in the simplest and most direct way, using HTML as the semantic underpinning, leads to both less engineering effort and to a more accessible design. Specifically, I do not think he was arguing doubling or tripling a movie budget in order to make another similar movie for blind people. But then again, we weren't talking about movies. We were talking about web sites, in which the loss of HTML would lead to a net loss compared to what we have now.