3 ms·
Other people in this thread (and in our world) have taken a different interpretation, arguing that people should be forbidden from making new public services, i
by schoen 5y ago
Other people in this thread (and in our world) have taken a different interpretation, arguing that people should be forbidden from making new public services, including online publishing, that don't work for users with some disability. (For example, someone else in this thread said that web sites need to be annotated with accessibility information in order to facilitate interoperability with assistive software. In that account, that is extra work that someone might otherwise not do, rather than just refraining from breaking something.)
The popularity of versions this position suggests to me that there is a need for analogies and arguments that defend the idea that you should, in fact, be able to do stuff that some people will benefit from/be able to participate in and others can't/won't.
- Retric 5y agoPeople seem to be confused here. What’s required is accommodation not equivalency. The important bit is things like color blindness can often but not always be accommodated. Government websites need to accommodate the blind where possible, but that doesn’t prevent them from making a video game which they are unable to play. Similarly, companies can discriminate if someone is unable to preform core job functions after reasonable accommodation. Aka, no blind school bus drivers. It’s because Covid information is just text and basic forms that they have the obligation. The requirements for 508 compliance are really quite basic, where projects trip up is treating it as some sort of tacked on requirement rather than basic functionality. Spending months on style choices etc then trying to tack on compliance when it’s “done.”