4 ms·

A website that is accessible for (most) old people is not automatically also accessible for, say, the blind. I fear, however, that you might be overlooking the

• Mz 15y ago
  No, I'm well aware of that point. I'm also aware that what is easily accessibly for people with limitations is frequently more easy to use for "normal" people. As someone with a real serious handicap who finally was able to get a normal job (after many years of basically being unemployable), I am keenly aware of a) the ways in which my differences set me apart from others and b) the ways in which so many "normal" people are also handicapped but don't frame it that way. I'm strongly convinced that "personal preferences" are typically rooted in ease of use in the face of some issue or other which may not be fully acknowledged as a handicap. But that's a rather complicated discussion that perhaps would not be appreciated here: People who view themselves as "not handicapped" tend to get rather defensive if someone suggests they really aren't that different from someone like me. Peace.
  • ugh 15y ago
    I think you didn't quite understand me or else you are bringing up a point that has nothing to do with the discussion. I was talking about the viability of market mechanisms, not the difference between being disabled and not being disabled. I didn't use the words disabled, handicapped or normal once in my comment. It was completely abstract.
    • Mz 15y ago
      No, I understood you perfectly. It's me that is very frequently not understood at all. I don't happen to see my points (about changing demographics, the mental models we use to frame such issues, and so on) as unrelated. It is often hopeless to try to get others to see why those things can matter a whole lot. It's perhaps best to end this exchange here, as neither side is likely to learn anything or be swayed. Peace.
      • crystalis 15y ago
        "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
        • Mz 15y ago
          I'm curious why you seem to think this remark applies to me but not to ugh.
          • pessimizer 15y ago
            Because ugh isn't trying to convince you of anything, but you seem to be trying to convince him, over and over again, at increasing length, that people are different and that what some people call "handicaps" are really just part of a range of characteristics, and each of us as people are a large set of those which are often accommodated for. He's just saying that there's no economic incentive to accommodate for variations in people that there's no market incentive to accommodate for, and that may or may not be a problem. He seems honestly confused at why that's setting you off.
            • Mz 15y ago
              No, that's not it at all. Nothing has "set me off". I know that the cost may be too high to make everything work perfectly for people who are (for example) blind. However, eyesight issues are not just limited to people who are blind. So I don't see any reason to say "it's just a handful of blind people" because it's really not. Perfect vision is the exception, not the norm. I've done my best to back out of the conversation as gracefully as possible without saying "yes, you're right, it's just a handful of blind people" because I don't think that is true. Give me a way to disengage that doesn't involve saying "yes, you're right, I'm just some twit who didn't know that and I'm simply overreacting" and I will happily take it. I am both baffled and, at this point, highly frustrated at how this whole thing has gone. The increasing attempts to characterize me negatively aren't making me feel any better about it. That's never a good thing. Peace.
              • 15y ago