3 ms·

>This is exactly why public schools have accessibility requirements for any of their communications. I am not sure you have an accessibility case regarding a f

>This is exactly why public schools have accessibility requirements for any of their communications. I am not sure you have an accessibility case regarding a facebook group. It is accessible for individuals with disabilities, via the use of electronic aides such as screen readers. Accessibility does not mean, "I get whatever I want whenever I want." It means, "I can access this without my disability impeding that." Not having facebook is not a disability. I'm very, very confused by what you're saying.

codingdave 5y ago
I was thinking of people without any connection at all - homeless families who have no mobile phones or internet connection. Those communications aren't about disability, just simple lack of access. But that is missing the forest for the trees - the specifics of this anecdote are one small point. Standing up for yourself is the bigger point. I could be 100% wrong about the accessibility in schools, but that doesn't change my larger wish - that we would all stand up and push back when we see problems... not just dismissively say, "well, we'd never win that fight, so don't even try."
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Right. Accessibility is about more than just accommodating people with disabilities. If communication from the government (public school) is inaccessible to people without a Facebook account, that should be a problem. I would hope that it could be corrected through the school board, or failing that, the justice system. You should not be required to use a particular Internet service, or even have Internet, or even have electricity, in order to interact with a government-funded school that is supposedly open to all.
  - Loughla 5y ago
    I still don't understand. What is the solution? Just for context, I despise facebook and genuinely believe they are nothing, literally nothing but a drain on society. But. . . I don't see a more accessible option. Facebook is as close to ubiquitous and universal as you can get, really. If someone cannot, not won't as the original poster said, but simply cannot access facebook, what other option is there? That means they have no smartphone, or internet access, at all. Therefore, there are no electronic options that exist. Physical paper mailers home? If they cannot afford a smartphone, what are the chances they have a permanent residence? Or, what for the parents who have no permanent residence. So that's not a solution. Next option - in person group meetings? Work, kids, health, transportation, any number of things exist that could be a barrier there. So what's the solution? That's not a flippant question, that's a real question. I don't see it. Again, accessibility should be about ensuring everyone has the opportunity to access the goods and services in an equivalent way. Not about ensuring everyone gets to access the goods and services in the specific way they want to. This all started with OP originally talking about not wanting a facebook. Not to sound too hateful, but part of living in society is understanding that certain personal concessions will have to be made. Like it or lump it, decisions have consequences. Maybe I've gone too far off the path, but I think it's all related.
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      As you point out, there is always someone you won't be able to reach, but why not at least move to media that are at least marginally more accessible than Facebook? E-mail for instance: You need an E-mail account to sign up for Facebook, so that means E-mail's userbase is at least a superset of Facebook's. Since you need Internet for E-mail, then the user-base for a normal, Internet web site should be a superset of E-mail users. Keep looking for supersets until the effort spent reaching the next one doesn't make sense anymore.

codingdave 5y ago

I was thinking of people without any connection at all - homeless families who have no mobile phones or internet connection. Those communications aren't about disability, just simple lack of access. But that is missing the forest for the trees - the specifics of this anecdote are one small point. Standing up for yourself is the bigger point. I could be 100% wrong about the accessibility in schools, but that doesn't change my larger wish - that we would all stand up and push back when we see problems... not just dismissively say, "well, we'd never win that fight, so don't even try."

ryandrake 5y ago
Right. Accessibility is about more than just accommodating people with disabilities. If communication from the government (public school) is inaccessible to people without a Facebook account, that should be a problem. I would hope that it could be corrected through the school board, or failing that, the justice system. You should not be required to use a particular Internet service, or even have Internet, or even have electricity, in order to interact with a government-funded school that is supposedly open to all.
- Loughla 5y ago
  I still don't understand. What is the solution? Just for context, I despise facebook and genuinely believe they are nothing, literally nothing but a drain on society. But. . . I don't see a more accessible option. Facebook is as close to ubiquitous and universal as you can get, really. If someone cannot, not won't as the original poster said, but simply cannot access facebook, what other option is there? That means they have no smartphone, or internet access, at all. Therefore, there are no electronic options that exist. Physical paper mailers home? If they cannot afford a smartphone, what are the chances they have a permanent residence? Or, what for the parents who have no permanent residence. So that's not a solution. Next option - in person group meetings? Work, kids, health, transportation, any number of things exist that could be a barrier there. So what's the solution? That's not a flippant question, that's a real question. I don't see it. Again, accessibility should be about ensuring everyone has the opportunity to access the goods and services in an equivalent way. Not about ensuring everyone gets to access the goods and services in the specific way they want to. This all started with OP originally talking about not wanting a facebook. Not to sound too hateful, but part of living in society is understanding that certain personal concessions will have to be made. Like it or lump it, decisions have consequences. Maybe I've gone too far off the path, but I think it's all related.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    As you point out, there is always someone you won't be able to reach, but why not at least move to media that are at least marginally more accessible than Facebook? E-mail for instance: You need an E-mail account to sign up for Facebook, so that means E-mail's userbase is at least a superset of Facebook's. Since you need Internet for E-mail, then the user-base for a normal, Internet web site should be a superset of E-mail users. Keep looking for supersets until the effort spent reaching the next one doesn't make sense anymore.