4 ms·
It does seem to dance around the issue of how easy bridges are to build without major flaws compared to how hard similarly sized software applications are to bu
by WindyLakeReturn 5y ago
It does seem to dance around the issue of how easy bridges are to build without major flaws compared to how hard similarly sized software applications are to build without major flaws. I would suggest that it is entirely possible the same reasons that we can't treat software projects like physical construction projects also applies to accessibility. I'm not saying that is the case, but that I haven't seen reason for it to not be the case and it should remain an option until shown otherwise.
- jcelerier 5y ago> It does seem to dance around the issue of how easy bridges are to build without major flaws ahaha what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures#2000%E2%80%93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures#2000%E...
- WindyLakeReturn 5y agoThere are a lot of bridges in the world, so the list is relatively short. If your argument that bridges are as hard (or harder) to build safely compared to software at a similar scale, I don't think a list of bridge failures backs that argument without comparing it to total number of bridges and then doing similar comparisons between software failures and software.
- cortesoft 5y agoI don’t think it is easier to build a safe bridge, we just make the effort to do it.
- throwawayboise 5y agoI think you're right. Unsafe bridges kill people. Most bad software does not, and when it might, we generally are more careful with it (not always, just as we still have bridge failures from time to time).