4 ms·

> They're not irreconcilable because accessibility is not binary. Not every user benefitting from accessibility features is blind. I'm always curious what some

> They're not irreconcilable because accessibility is not binary. Not every user benefitting from accessibility features is blind. I'm always curious what someone means when they say that something "is not binary". The phrase seems to imply that the situation is more complicated than it appears at a glance, but I've noticed a pattern in which the people who claim things to be "non-binary" habitually dismiss valid prose before actually engaging with them. They don't tend to actually explain themselves, they simply spout unverified information as if it is truth.

capableweb 3y ago
It's programmer's version of "it's not black or white". In this case, a program isn't "accessible" or "not accessible" but rather degrees of accessibility. Not everyone is 100% blind, so small accessibility features makes it easier for them while not being accessible to 100% of the population.
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago
  > It's programmer's version of "it's not black or white". I am aware. My issue is with people using the phrase as if the folks they are arguing with aren't aware that the world isn't black and white, but actually a complicated place in which nuance and forethought are the norm.
  - capableweb 3y ago
    To be fair, parent poster did write: > If accessibility is something you care about, don't write TUI programs. The two concepts are irreconcilable. Which seems to indicate they see accessibility as something that is black or white, either you're accessible and don't write TUI programs, or you go ahead and write TUI programs and forget any sort of accessibility. While the reality is that even if you write TUI programs, you can make them more accessible by following paradigms like "don't just use colors as visual indicators".
    - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
      To be clear, my issue is with the phrasing "non-binary". Imo, such phrasing attempts to squelch discourse by attempting to claim authority. If you claim that something is "non-binary"... can you use your words to explain how? A "binary" situation means that one of two things will happen. How is your example excused from binary representation?
      - funklute 3y ago
        In this case, it seems a perfectly valid choice of words. "irreconcilable" basically implies that there is a binary choice -- either use a TUI or aim for accessibility, but you can't have both. The responder was saying that actually it's not a binary choice -- there are degrees of accessibility, and some accessibility can be attained within a TUI. Disagreeing with someone, using valid arguments, is not the same as squelching discourse.
        dumpsterdiver 3y ago
        > Disagreeing with someone, using valid arguments, is not the same as squelching discourse. I can relate with your position; I understand what you're saying. I guess my point is that some words that humans speak can strike a nerve in others. For instance, apparently I'm a huge Temple Grandin fan. I didn't know that until I mentioned the name Temple Grandin to my girlfriend of nearly five years recently and she basically snapped and told me that she never wanted me to say that name again. Apparently when I first met her I had a lot of good things to say about Temple Grandin, and I guess throughout the following five years I've mentioned Temple Grandin enough that it just raises her hackles when she hears it now. She's a good person, and absolutely does not have anything against Temple Grandin. She just doesn't like hearing that name when it's my voice speaking it.
        funklute 3y ago
        hehe yes I can relate to that! I'm not sure if you had this in mind when you said "non-binary", but I also think along the same lines you just noted, that there is a difference between "not binary", and "non-binary". The latter could evoke connotations to the culture wars and gender identity -- though that of course has nothing to do with accessibility (of TUIs, bathrooms might be another matter). Then again, I'm neither American nor a native English speaker, so I hardly have much authority on this point.

capableweb 3y ago

It's programmer's version of "it's not black or white". In this case, a program isn't "accessible" or "not accessible" but rather degrees of accessibility. Not everyone is 100% blind, so small accessibility features makes it easier for them while not being accessible to 100% of the population.

dumpsterdiver 3y ago
> It's programmer's version of "it's not black or white". I am aware. My issue is with people using the phrase as if the folks they are arguing with aren't aware that the world isn't black and white, but actually a complicated place in which nuance and forethought are the norm.
- capableweb 3y ago
  To be fair, parent poster did write: > If accessibility is something you care about, don't write TUI programs. The two concepts are irreconcilable. Which seems to indicate they see accessibility as something that is black or white, either you're accessible and don't write TUI programs, or you go ahead and write TUI programs and forget any sort of accessibility. While the reality is that even if you write TUI programs, you can make them more accessible by following paradigms like "don't just use colors as visual indicators".
  - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
    To be clear, my issue is with the phrasing "non-binary". Imo, such phrasing attempts to squelch discourse by attempting to claim authority. If you claim that something is "non-binary"... can you use your words to explain how? A "binary" situation means that one of two things will happen. How is your example excused from binary representation?
    - funklute 3y ago
      In this case, it seems a perfectly valid choice of words. "irreconcilable" basically implies that there is a binary choice -- either use a TUI or aim for accessibility, but you can't have both. The responder was saying that actually it's not a binary choice -- there are degrees of accessibility, and some accessibility can be attained within a TUI. Disagreeing with someone, using valid arguments, is not the same as squelching discourse.
      - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
        > Disagreeing with someone, using valid arguments, is not the same as squelching discourse. I can relate with your position; I understand what you're saying. I guess my point is that some words that humans speak can strike a nerve in others. For instance, apparently I'm a huge Temple Grandin fan. I didn't know that until I mentioned the name Temple Grandin to my girlfriend of nearly five years recently and she basically snapped and told me that she never wanted me to say that name again. Apparently when I first met her I had a lot of good things to say about Temple Grandin, and I guess throughout the following five years I've mentioned Temple Grandin enough that it just raises her hackles when she hears it now. She's a good person, and absolutely does not have anything against Temple Grandin. She just doesn't like hearing that name when it's my voice speaking it.
        funklute 3y ago
        hehe yes I can relate to that! I'm not sure if you had this in mind when you said "non-binary", but I also think along the same lines you just noted, that there is a difference between "not binary", and "non-binary". The latter could evoke connotations to the culture wars and gender identity -- though that of course has nothing to do with accessibility (of TUIs, bathrooms might be another matter). Then again, I'm neither American nor a native English speaker, so I hardly have much authority on this point.