4 ms·

I think that's pretty bad. A development shop shouldn't be forced to follow all sorts of accessibility requirements.

simonh 6y ago
Accessibility UIs that are designed by committee and set in stone. No innovation allowed, by law. Gah, ironically Apple's platforms have the best accessibility in the industry regardless of legislation. They pretty much always have.
- the_other 6y ago
  Disability legislation doesn’t design solutions: it provides requirements which are inputs into your design process. The solutions are up to you.
  - simonh 6y ago
    I was replying to a post explicitly suggesting that the APIs and UI for accessibility should be standardised. In that context I think trying to refute, er, the suggestion actualy being made, is reasonable.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      I’m not suggesting that — I thought you were speaking metaphorically. If a court mandates that Apple allow sideloaded apps or third-party app stores, it will obviously take the same form as accessibility requirements, not specific APIs or UI designs.
the_other 6y ago
As a disabled person, I’m forced to disagree. Most disability is social: activities are hard to perform not due to physical limitation (although this has some effect), but because social constructs and practices obstruct access.
- auggierose 6y ago
  It depends on the kind of software. Should games be required to be accessible? I don't think so. Should banking apps be required to be accessible? That probably depends on the size of the bank. Should software used for accessing government services be accessible? Of course. I don't think a law forcing all software to be accessible makes any kind of sense.
  - the_other 6y ago
    At a personal level, I’m fine with individual pieces of software being accessible or not. It’s the same with individual pieces of art, buildings and so on. I’m into music enough that I DJ and play in bands; my partner is deaf and prefers subtitled films; no big deal. But when you pull your focus a bit further back to look at society, Infrastructure, systems and practices, it’s easy to see that disabled people are both more vulnerable and also less well supported (and often actively discriminated against). The laws we have give disabled people some leverage to redress that imbalance. Unfortunately, the perspective that “accessibility is an expensive addition” is so pervasive (or not even considered), that disabled people need those laws. A problem with laws is they reinforce binary thinking. As written they tend towards flexibility, but at the point of enforcement, there’s usually a hard line between punishment and not, which amplifies that binary impression. A less binary outlook would see people and companies embracing the opportunities for collaboration and creativity. For example, a big games publisher could actively seek out and promote developers who specialise in accessible games, or games that play with creative devices beyond the vision-first norm. A few examples exist but they’re rare, independent and it’s not a category you can search for. The same goes for art, galleries, cinema. London, where I live, had an improving state of live subtitled theatre, but it’s still only one performance in 50 or 100, for the big shows. It’s probably only even this good because of the law.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    No one is asking for a law forcing all software to be accessible — just commercial and public (in the “government operated” sense) software. A bank’s size should not determine whether or not they have to support e.g. blind customers.

Accessibility UIs that are designed by committee and set in stone. No innovation allowed, by law. Gah, ironically Apple's platforms have the best accessibility in the industry regardless of legislation. They pretty much always have.

the_other 6y ago
Disability legislation doesn’t design solutions: it provides requirements which are inputs into your design process. The solutions are up to you.
- simonh 6y ago
  I was replying to a post explicitly suggesting that the APIs and UI for accessibility should be standardised. In that context I think trying to refute, er, the suggestion actualy being made, is reasonable.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I’m not suggesting that — I thought you were speaking metaphorically. If a court mandates that Apple allow sideloaded apps or third-party app stores, it will obviously take the same form as accessibility requirements, not specific APIs or UI designs.

the_other 6y ago

As a disabled person, I’m forced to disagree. Most disability is social: activities are hard to perform not due to physical limitation (although this has some effect), but because social constructs and practices obstruct access.

auggierose 6y ago
It depends on the kind of software. Should games be required to be accessible? I don't think so. Should banking apps be required to be accessible? That probably depends on the size of the bank. Should software used for accessing government services be accessible? Of course. I don't think a law forcing all software to be accessible makes any kind of sense.
- the_other 6y ago
  At a personal level, I’m fine with individual pieces of software being accessible or not. It’s the same with individual pieces of art, buildings and so on. I’m into music enough that I DJ and play in bands; my partner is deaf and prefers subtitled films; no big deal. But when you pull your focus a bit further back to look at society, Infrastructure, systems and practices, it’s easy to see that disabled people are both more vulnerable and also less well supported (and often actively discriminated against). The laws we have give disabled people some leverage to redress that imbalance. Unfortunately, the perspective that “accessibility is an expensive addition” is so pervasive (or not even considered), that disabled people need those laws. A problem with laws is they reinforce binary thinking. As written they tend towards flexibility, but at the point of enforcement, there’s usually a hard line between punishment and not, which amplifies that binary impression. A less binary outlook would see people and companies embracing the opportunities for collaboration and creativity. For example, a big games publisher could actively seek out and promote developers who specialise in accessible games, or games that play with creative devices beyond the vision-first norm. A few examples exist but they’re rare, independent and it’s not a category you can search for. The same goes for art, galleries, cinema. London, where I live, had an improving state of live subtitled theatre, but it’s still only one performance in 50 or 100, for the big shows. It’s probably only even this good because of the law.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  No one is asking for a law forcing all software to be accessible — just commercial and public (in the “government operated” sense) software. A bank’s size should not determine whether or not they have to support e.g. blind customers.