4 ms·

> As an example, a lot of websites drop support for IE. If the makeup of IE users affected by it over-indexed on any particular type of race/gender/class/sexual

> As an example, a lot of websites drop support for IE. If the makeup of IE users affected by it over-indexed on any particular type of race/gender/class/sexual orientation, would you classify that as inadvertent discrimination? It's likely that until recently (maybe), that IE users were more likely to use JAWS and accessibility tools than other groups, especially if they couldn't afford upgrades to newer releases of JAWS or were stuck on enterprise computers. > If a first version of a new website/product wasn't built to be perfectly compatible with accessibility standards, are they inadvertently discriminating against those with disabilities? Yes, if the site is inaccessible. That said it's harder to claim that a game designed for a touch screen is inaccessible and discriminates against accessible users who prefer keyboards, perhaps, due to the hardware they use. The game might work better on a touch screen, like Fruit Ninja and might be very hard to replicate without a touch screen. > Software bugs that may not be equally felt Maybe. If the bug was a recent introduction of a non-binary gender field and only those with non-binary genders were affected, it could be considered inadvertent discrimination. It can also be considered a bug. Its severity depends on how long the bug remains in the system. If it's pushing a year, that's more likely discrimination in addition to poor QA practices and a likely inability to listen to user feedback. > Is the only way to not inadvertently discriminate to ensure products are built to be optimized for every single human and use case? Every edge case needs to be solved for before launch? I think we need to keep in mind that just because something could be discrimination doesn't mean we can't forgive and move on. Mistakes are a fact of life, and nothing's perfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to aim for shipping fewer bugs, it means when we can, we fix the bugs, we listen to users, etc. It's very possible that one user's perfect app will in fact be completely wrong for another user, so pleasing everyone is impossible. It's why ergonomics has been so hard, humans aren't all the same height, etc. Sometimes you need settings for users to adjust software to suit their preferences, such as font size. And sometimes you make font size part of the game, and it's not adjustable. If allowable under law, being inaccessible can be a choice, or it can be inadvertent. It's true some folks can get really worked up on a topic they care deeply about. It's also true that it's just software, and new software will come along eventually with different features that may please some audiences more. Or less. It all depends. :)

FFRefresh 5y ago
[Edit: Didn't see that you started answering my last question before I wrote this, about the operational implications of trying to eliminate everything that could be considered inadvertent discrimination. Going to just leave this comment as is, as I do think the utilitarian/deontological thinking about product development processes is an interesting quandary in today's climate :) ] Given this thinking about inadvertent discrimination, and that the word 'discrimination' is very much coded as a 'bad' thing, what should be done about it? Should any website/product that launches without being perfectly operable for every single user be sanctioned in some way? If not, aren't we supporting inadvertent discrimination? Isn't any allowance of inadvertent discrimination a bad thing? Should there be some sort of utilitarian calculation with it? Or is it strictly a deontological thing? There can be no discrimination, therefore, we must not allow or we should disincentivize product development processes which release versions before they are equally workable for everyone?
- lstamour 5y ago
  I'd also point out that organizations can have incentives align with accessibility and inclusion rather than discrimination, accidental or otherwise. For example, having a textual version of a video or image makes your page more optimized for basic search engines. Now, of course, the same incentives could lead to dark patterns, lack of privacy, or even dividing people further, perhaps becoming a platform for divisiveness. Personally, I think that we can identify and mark certain dark patterns as illegal, outright. We can encourage plugins and browser settings to enhance privacy. The hardest question is how much we need everything to be perfectly accessible and to not cause further discrimination or harm. That last one is difficult. I think ultimately the best answer we have is to classify some bad actors like we would dark patterns. This forum is an example of how rules and community can lead to better civil discourse online, but it's not necessarily as diverse as it could be due to those same rules. I think there will always be an unregulated middle ground where no one takes responsibility until they (a) have to and (b) understand how to, and that's especially true of government services at local and regional levels.

FFRefresh 5y ago

[Edit: Didn't see that you started answering my last question before I wrote this, about the operational implications of trying to eliminate everything that could be considered inadvertent discrimination. Going to just leave this comment as is, as I do think the utilitarian/deontological thinking about product development processes is an interesting quandary in today's climate :) ] Given this thinking about inadvertent discrimination, and that the word 'discrimination' is very much coded as a 'bad' thing, what should be done about it? Should any website/product that launches without being perfectly operable for every single user be sanctioned in some way? If not, aren't we supporting inadvertent discrimination? Isn't any allowance of inadvertent discrimination a bad thing? Should there be some sort of utilitarian calculation with it? Or is it strictly a deontological thing? There can be no discrimination, therefore, we must not allow or we should disincentivize product development processes which release versions before they are equally workable for everyone?

lstamour 5y ago
I'd also point out that organizations can have incentives align with accessibility and inclusion rather than discrimination, accidental or otherwise. For example, having a textual version of a video or image makes your page more optimized for basic search engines. Now, of course, the same incentives could lead to dark patterns, lack of privacy, or even dividing people further, perhaps becoming a platform for divisiveness. Personally, I think that we can identify and mark certain dark patterns as illegal, outright. We can encourage plugins and browser settings to enhance privacy. The hardest question is how much we need everything to be perfectly accessible and to not cause further discrimination or harm. That last one is difficult. I think ultimately the best answer we have is to classify some bad actors like we would dark patterns. This forum is an example of how rules and community can lead to better civil discourse online, but it's not necessarily as diverse as it could be due to those same rules. I think there will always be an unregulated middle ground where no one takes responsibility until they (a) have to and (b) understand how to, and that's especially true of government services at local and regional levels.