5 ms·

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 e

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.
  - auggierose 6y ago
    All software that's sold is commercial. So that means all software except software no-one pays for anyway.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Of which there is far more than commercial software, especially if you count e.g. websites.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > I don't think a law forcing all software to be accessible makes any kind of sense. Easy to say when you don't have disabilities Now imagine that the only content you can consume are government's websites to pay taxes...
  - auggierose 6y ago
    Now imagine the only software you are allowed to write is the one that can meet all accessibility requirements.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      That should be the norm if you care about it... It's like saying that if you work in constructions you shouldn't care about accessibility unless you work on government's buildings But people with disabilities go to cinemas, pubs, bars, restaurants, museums, stadiums, ballrooms etc. etc. I honestly don't see your point
      - auggierose 6y ago
        I guess we have to disagree here. Software is much more flexible than a building. People have been trying to draw these construction work - software analogies forever now, and it is just bullocks. Making a building is a solved problem. Most interesting software isn't a solved problem, otherwise you wouldn't need that software in the first place. Now is it for Microsoft a good idea to make their Office software accessible? For sure. Is it for me a good idea to make the software I write accessible? What does that even mean in the various contexts? It's not like you add an elevator and an extra bathroom and you are good. Will I be getting paid for the huge amount of extra work I need to do to produce something that's truly accessible and not just a lip service?

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.
- auggierose 6y ago
  All software that's sold is commercial. So that means all software except software no-one pays for anyway.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Of which there is far more than commercial software, especially if you count e.g. websites.
romanoderoma 6y ago
> I don't think a law forcing all software to be accessible makes any kind of sense. Easy to say when you don't have disabilities Now imagine that the only content you can consume are government's websites to pay taxes...
- auggierose 6y ago
  Now imagine the only software you are allowed to write is the one that can meet all accessibility requirements.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    That should be the norm if you care about it... It's like saying that if you work in constructions you shouldn't care about accessibility unless you work on government's buildings But people with disabilities go to cinemas, pubs, bars, restaurants, museums, stadiums, ballrooms etc. etc. I honestly don't see your point
    - auggierose 6y ago
      I guess we have to disagree here. Software is much more flexible than a building. People have been trying to draw these construction work - software analogies forever now, and it is just bullocks. Making a building is a solved problem. Most interesting software isn't a solved problem, otherwise you wouldn't need that software in the first place. Now is it for Microsoft a good idea to make their Office software accessible? For sure. Is it for me a good idea to make the software I write accessible? What does that even mean in the various contexts? It's not like you add an elevator and an extra bathroom and you are good. Will I be getting paid for the huge amount of extra work I need to do to produce something that's truly accessible and not just a lip service?