5 ms·

You think it's weird that people expect random website owners with limited resources not to be held to the same accessibility standards as multi-billion dollar

by yucky 4y ago

You think it's weird that people expect random website owners with limited resources not to be held to the same accessibility standards as multi-billion dollar manufactures? Why?

roenxi 4y ago
Because that would be treating the value of an individual as dependent on the power of the entity they are interacting with, which is a bit weird. It isn't really a defensible position to say that you have an interaction with someone and to work out how they ought behave you need to go and do a tally of their assets and mull over their balance sheets. It'd be tantamount to saying we'd need to know what Haim Michael's assets were to know how to feel about this article. The law shouldn't change depending on whether he is broke, has $100k in savings or is a multi-millionaire. The issue here under the law is whether disabled people can access his website or not.
- yucky 4y ago
  >The issue here under the law is whether disabled people can access his website or not. A website is a work of art, and nobody has a right to someone else's art. Disabled or not.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    On what basis do you say that? You seem to be in conflict with Israeli law on this one, and I think on a moral level that is a bit shaky. If your art could be appreciated by disabled people, it seems a bit questionable to assert that there is a 'right' to exclude them. I want to be clear - I think all this regulatory interference is doing more harm than good. But I don't see why this case is different because it is working on behalf of disabled people rather than ... I can't figure out who the charger stuff is meant to be helping, I see a lot of people outraged that they bought 2x chargers, which seems like a funny group of people to be protecting.
    - yucky 4y ago
      A blind person can't see a painting, therefore we shouldn't paint. A deaf person can't hear music, therefore we shouldn't make music. This argument is absurd. Nobody has a right to prevent someone form expressing themselves just because they can't enjoy it.
      - roenxi 4y ago
        > A blind person can't see a painting, therefore we shouldn't paint. A deaf person can't hear music, therefore we shouldn't make music. That is a bit of a strawman argument though, is there anyone saying that? The actual situation is likely more like if a blind person can't see your painting you have to describe it to them. And I don't see how this is going to fit in with your original point on multi-billion dollar corporations. If we want to keep to the idea of absurd outcomes, why is it so much more absurd that Mr Michael has to make accessible videos but world's best phone design company isn't considered competent to design a phone? These are both pretty absurd.
        yucky 4y ago
        >That is a bit of a strawman argument though, is there anyone saying that? Yes, you did. And then followed up with the same line of reasoning again in the next sentence: > The actual situation is likely more like if a blind person can't see your painting you have to describe it to them. But my painting is only meant to be appreciated visually because that is how I choose to express it. The idea that I should be forced to represent my art in a way I never intended it to be, is absurd.
        roenxi 4y ago
        If you feel that describing your painting to a blind person is beneath your dignity as an artist, to the point that you'd rather have left it unpainted, then truly I sit in awe of your principles. But why you think that you can apply that sort of standard to yourself, but not see a level of absurdity in the EU commission trying to wrest phone design away from Apple of all companies is still a profound mystery even after all these posts. They have as much a "right" to design integrity as an artist does.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  >The issue here under the law is whether disabled people can access his website or not. Soon you will apply the same standard for video games too? After all, why can't people without arms enjoy the same video games as you do? This kind of line of thinking has no end in sight, and is purely aimed at killing smaller companies and reinforcing the centralization of a few actors.
  - Nexxxeh 4y ago
    I disagree with your rhetorical question, as people without arms absolutely can enjoy the same video games I do. I don't know about Sony and Nintendo, but Microsoft and 3rd parties on PC have absolutely ploughed resources into making sure that's the case. Notable examples include the Xbox Adaptive Controller [1] which greatly simplifies making custom setups for the specific needs of gamers with limited motor control or limb difference etc. Features like Co-pilot [2] which allow cooperative controller use. And that's JUST from Microsoft, there's plenty more from third parties and hackers. Hell, one absolute lunatic [3] has been playing COD and SF4 with a recorder (the musical instrument). You can absolutely build custom controllers, be that for limb difference or just to make ridiculous Twitch streams as you headshot someone with a C Sharp. Most games now include the obvious traditional stuff like subtitles. Useful for me personally. Plus stuff like visual changes for the visually impaired (inc specific palettes for colour blindness) are common. And we're starting to see many more with newer "cognitive accessibility" options like motion sickness reduction presets for graphical options, objective assists and difficulty reduction, etc. [1] https://www.xbox.com/en-GB/accessories/controllers/xbox-adaptive-controller https://www.xbox.com/en-GB/accessories/controllers/xbox-adap... [2] https://support.xbox.com/en-GB/help/account-profile/accessibility/copilot https://support.xbox.com/en-GB/help/account-profile/accessib... [3] https://www.twitch.tv/DeanoBeano https://www.twitch.tv/DeanoBeano I think you're completely wrong on this. Gaming should be accessible and there's no excuse for it not to be in future. It's not aimed at killing any companies. It's about enabling us all to kill each other, race each other, build stupid forts with each other, and hunt demons together. Armless or not.
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      > I don't know about Sony and Nintendo, but Microsoft and 3rd parties on PC have absolutely ploughed resources into making sure that's the case. Hence proving my point that this is the stuff of big companies. If you had to develop solutions as a small manufacturer because it is "mandated" you would go bankrupt before accomplishing anything > I think you're completely wrong on this. Gaming should be accessible and there's no excuse for it not to be in future. "should"'s are meaningless. Resources are limited and you can't expect to serve all the needs out there when you make a product. Making choices matter, and that's precisely why you cannot make a product for "everyone".
- Adrox 4y ago
  There is dozens of laws in EU that only apply for companies with more than 100 employees, or X in revenue: - Mandatory canteens. - Mandatory retirement savings plan. - Break rooms (in Sweden my company had a nap room that had to have a locked door from inside).
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  It is entirely defensible to have different expectations of the amount of effort and money a provider of services can put into accessibility and regulatory compliance based on how much money they make. I assert that it is rational to expect a large bank or city government to have accessibility standards and at the same time, not expect Hacker News or a personal blog to have the same.
itsoktocry 4y ago
Because requirement to obey the law shouldn't be based on your resources.
- throwaway41597 4y ago
  Considering how vast, obscure and absurd the law is, I think it should. As a matter of fact, it often is.

by yucky 4y ago

You think it's weird that people expect random website owners with limited resources not to be held to the same accessibility standards as multi-billion dollar manufactures? Why?

roenxi 4y ago

Because that would be treating the value of an individual as dependent on the power of the entity they are interacting with, which is a bit weird. It isn't really a defensible position to say that you have an interaction with someone and to work out how they ought behave you need to go and do a tally of their assets and mull over their balance sheets. It'd be tantamount to saying we'd need to know what Haim Michael's assets were to know how to feel about this article. The law shouldn't change depending on whether he is broke, has $100k in savings or is a multi-millionaire. The issue here under the law is whether disabled people can access his website or not.

yucky 4y ago
>The issue here under the law is whether disabled people can access his website or not. A website is a work of art, and nobody has a right to someone else's art. Disabled or not.
- roenxi 4y ago
  On what basis do you say that? You seem to be in conflict with Israeli law on this one, and I think on a moral level that is a bit shaky. If your art could be appreciated by disabled people, it seems a bit questionable to assert that there is a 'right' to exclude them. I want to be clear - I think all this regulatory interference is doing more harm than good. But I don't see why this case is different because it is working on behalf of disabled people rather than ... I can't figure out who the charger stuff is meant to be helping, I see a lot of people outraged that they bought 2x chargers, which seems like a funny group of people to be protecting.
  - yucky 4y ago
    A blind person can't see a painting, therefore we shouldn't paint. A deaf person can't hear music, therefore we shouldn't make music. This argument is absurd. Nobody has a right to prevent someone form expressing themselves just because they can't enjoy it.
    - roenxi 4y ago
      > A blind person can't see a painting, therefore we shouldn't paint. A deaf person can't hear music, therefore we shouldn't make music. That is a bit of a strawman argument though, is there anyone saying that? The actual situation is likely more like if a blind person can't see your painting you have to describe it to them. And I don't see how this is going to fit in with your original point on multi-billion dollar corporations. If we want to keep to the idea of absurd outcomes, why is it so much more absurd that Mr Michael has to make accessible videos but world's best phone design company isn't considered competent to design a phone? These are both pretty absurd.
      - yucky 4y ago
        >That is a bit of a strawman argument though, is there anyone saying that? Yes, you did. And then followed up with the same line of reasoning again in the next sentence: > The actual situation is likely more like if a blind person can't see your painting you have to describe it to them. But my painting is only meant to be appreciated visually because that is how I choose to express it. The idea that I should be forced to represent my art in a way I never intended it to be, is absurd.
        roenxi 4y ago
        If you feel that describing your painting to a blind person is beneath your dignity as an artist, to the point that you'd rather have left it unpainted, then truly I sit in awe of your principles. But why you think that you can apply that sort of standard to yourself, but not see a level of absurdity in the EU commission trying to wrest phone design away from Apple of all companies is still a profound mystery even after all these posts. They have as much a "right" to design integrity as an artist does.
ekianjo 4y ago
>The issue here under the law is whether disabled people can access his website or not. Soon you will apply the same standard for video games too? After all, why can't people without arms enjoy the same video games as you do? This kind of line of thinking has no end in sight, and is purely aimed at killing smaller companies and reinforcing the centralization of a few actors.
- Nexxxeh 4y ago
  I disagree with your rhetorical question, as people without arms absolutely can enjoy the same video games I do. I don't know about Sony and Nintendo, but Microsoft and 3rd parties on PC have absolutely ploughed resources into making sure that's the case. Notable examples include the Xbox Adaptive Controller [1] which greatly simplifies making custom setups for the specific needs of gamers with limited motor control or limb difference etc. Features like Co-pilot [2] which allow cooperative controller use. And that's JUST from Microsoft, there's plenty more from third parties and hackers. Hell, one absolute lunatic [3] has been playing COD and SF4 with a recorder (the musical instrument). You can absolutely build custom controllers, be that for limb difference or just to make ridiculous Twitch streams as you headshot someone with a C Sharp. Most games now include the obvious traditional stuff like subtitles. Useful for me personally. Plus stuff like visual changes for the visually impaired (inc specific palettes for colour blindness) are common. And we're starting to see many more with newer "cognitive accessibility" options like motion sickness reduction presets for graphical options, objective assists and difficulty reduction, etc. [1] https://www.xbox.com/en-GB/accessories/controllers/xbox-adaptive-controller https://www.xbox.com/en-GB/accessories/controllers/xbox-adap... [2] https://support.xbox.com/en-GB/help/account-profile/accessibility/copilot https://support.xbox.com/en-GB/help/account-profile/accessib... [3] https://www.twitch.tv/DeanoBeano https://www.twitch.tv/DeanoBeano I think you're completely wrong on this. Gaming should be accessible and there's no excuse for it not to be in future. It's not aimed at killing any companies. It's about enabling us all to kill each other, race each other, build stupid forts with each other, and hunt demons together. Armless or not.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > I don't know about Sony and Nintendo, but Microsoft and 3rd parties on PC have absolutely ploughed resources into making sure that's the case. Hence proving my point that this is the stuff of big companies. If you had to develop solutions as a small manufacturer because it is "mandated" you would go bankrupt before accomplishing anything > I think you're completely wrong on this. Gaming should be accessible and there's no excuse for it not to be in future. "should"'s are meaningless. Resources are limited and you can't expect to serve all the needs out there when you make a product. Making choices matter, and that's precisely why you cannot make a product for "everyone".
Adrox 4y ago
There is dozens of laws in EU that only apply for companies with more than 100 employees, or X in revenue: - Mandatory canteens. - Mandatory retirement savings plan. - Break rooms (in Sweden my company had a nap room that had to have a locked door from inside).
unethical_ban 4y ago
It is entirely defensible to have different expectations of the amount of effort and money a provider of services can put into accessibility and regulatory compliance based on how much money they make. I assert that it is rational to expect a large bank or city government to have accessibility standards and at the same time, not expect Hacker News or a personal blog to have the same.

itsoktocry 4y ago

Because requirement to obey the law shouldn't be based on your resources.

throwaway41597 4y ago
Considering how vast, obscure and absurd the law is, I think it should. As a matter of fact, it often is.