3 ms·
The phrasing is certainly provocative, but a truly conscientious person would pick a side on the basis of merit. There's hardly any point in reasoning with some
by 3grdlurker 5y ago
The phrasing is certainly provocative, but a truly conscientious person would pick a side on the basis of merit. There's hardly any point in reasoning with someone who's obviously looking to make a decision based on the emotions evoked by an article.
- dudul 5y agoThe thing is there isn't much in this article other than emotion. A sound thesis would examine (at least seemingly) legitimate arguments against accessibility. Another comment on this thread points out that designing/implementing accessibility comes at a cost. Why would money-tight companies use resources to do it? Maybe mention the market share represented by people who need accessible sites. Maybe provide the numbers for how many websites are truly accessible. Highlight the fact that by spending resources on it it could almost be akin to targeting a niche with very little competition. That's how you convince conscientious people, not by saying "if you don't do it, you're a fraud".
- 3grdlurker 5y agoThere are good articles that make for good, thought-provoking discussions, and then there simply are bad ones.
- pwillia7 5y agosick burn