4 ms·

> Whether you work in tech or not - it is your duty to make sure that no one feels demoralised or rejected because of the systems you build. Shouting into the

> Whether you work in tech or not - it is your duty to make sure that no one feels demoralised or rejected because of the systems you build. Shouting into the wind Until the financial incentives of investors, employees and customers align this will never be a priority

throwawa14223 3y ago
Or other people don't believe it to be a deontological style duty.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I don’t disagree with you, however we are talking about real people in society, not a theoretical philosophical system. I’m unaware of any wide scale explicitly adopted philosophy wherein there is zero responsibility from individuals to care for others or society. I am curious though what you would describe as your personal philosophy, or if you’re not talking about yourself then what ethics framework are you referring to living inside that does not have a normative component. Maybe a better way to ask it is: what relativistic philosophy is dominant enough or otherwise adopted to such an extent that people are able to functionally live underneath it without any type of a-priori responsibility to others. What I DO see however are people who reject responsibility for others, yet accept or even demand support from others - even if it’s tacit - and then hold a position like you describe. So I remain suspect of anyone promoting some extreme version of individualism, as it conflicts with not only biology, but the entire history of societies and philosophies.
coffeebeqn 3y ago
That will never happen? Ergo government regulations
josephg 3y ago
> Until the financial incentives of investors, employees and customers align this will never be a priority In some parts of the world, disabled people can sue businesses over accessibility issues. People complain about the “disability mafia” shaking down businesses, but I think it might be the only way to align incentives to actually get these problems reliably addressed.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  > People complain about the “disability mafia” shaking down businesses, but I think it might be the only way to align incentives to actually get these problems reliably addressed. But IMO the other side of this is also tricky, because you don't want companies to respond by removing services for everyone. There was an article on here the other day about how a town had a non-ADA-compliant crosswalk. Fearing a lawsuit, the town addressed the issue... by removing the crosswalk. (You could still cross the street—with a wheelchair, even—but you had to walk much further to do so.) I also remember the article about the California university—was it Berkley?—where some professors posted their lectures freely online for members of the public. Of course, they didn't have the resources to go through and add subtitles—these lectures were for non-students, they didn't generate any revenue—and the university got sued. Obviously, they responded by pulling down the lectures. Situations like these just make everything worse for everyone. How do we write regulations which avoid that?
  - zo1 3y ago
    You make it illegal for people to profit off of the regulation? Make it so the only "money" they get is in the form of paying doctors, psychiatrists and counselors. Raise the bar to prove that monetary compensation is needed. Also, stop using this mechanism to "punish" companies. Punish them by forcing them to comply, not by taking money from them and giving it to victims. That part is the one that creates a perverse incentive for people to take advantage. Edit. Make it so it's legal to sue people that profit (money) off of this, at least the lawyers involved or ones that advertise these kinds of services. So many ways to solve it. Too bad we as a society are stuck in a rut and can't undo bad choices or change direction easily. If you go down this path, be prepared for the onslaught of "you hate the disabled" from the entrenched interests. Some of which will be plain old disability advocacy groups that generally do good but also got stuck in this path and are captured by profit-seekers.
CoastalCoder 3y ago
> it is your duty to make sure that no one feels demoralised or rejected because of the systems you build. Making such an assertion is easy. In fact, I've heard many, incompatible claims about duties that supposedly apply to me. Mostly without supporting arguments.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  It's true, there's equal objective "support" for normative ethics claims across the board. So you can prove Nazi fascism is "correct" using the same process that you would to prove altruistic liberalism. Given that existential nihilism concludes with "it's up to you to choose what is right" my question to you is: Why would you actively choose a position that would be considered anti-social instead of a position that would be considered pro-social if they have the same objective grounding?
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Not everyone is social. Some people want to build what they want even if that means a group of people will be excluded.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      This is simply saying that you do not have, and do not desire to acquire, the emotional capacity to be satisfied with the social trade offs of voluntary subordination of a portion of your own personal desires to benefit the desires of others who may also want to commune with you. So if your proof claim is simply “I don’t want to” then it’s entirely ignoring the question with the idea that it’s not your choice anyway - you’re just born that way - which is not a relativistic statement. In fact it’s a biological determinism argument and if you would like to go down that hole I think it would yield that your claimed antisocial “preference” is extremely rare historically - to the extent where as an outlier it’s questionable if it is an evolutionary fitness trait or if it’s ultimately supporting a genetic brick wall.
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
zer8k 3y ago
> it is your duty to make sure that no one feels demoralised or rejected because of the systems you build. This is the most dangerous line of thinking and one of the many reasons people are tiring of woke-ism. Most reasonable people agree accommodations for the disabled are both smart from a business perspective, and kind to patrons in general. To reframe having objections to this as a "demoralization" and "rejection" that needs "special training" to understand seems more like the schizophrenic sociologists are off their meds again. Importantly, I have no duty to anyone except my family. I am not obligated by anyone to do anything for you. This is not to be interpreted as me not having empathy for the disabled. But it is not my obligation to do anything about it. I have worked specifically in this industry helping the visually impaired navigate websites better. However, I cannot afford to do such a design for my own personal sites. These types of prescriptive ultimatums are exhausting and when they're codified into law they have an unintended chilling effect.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  [flagged]
- majewsky 3y ago
  > Most reasonable people agree accommodations for the disabled are both smart from a business perspective, and kind to patrons in general. If that were true, then given the evidence presented in the post and in this thread, the corollary would be that a significant amount of large businesses are run by unreasonable people.
lijok 3y ago
> it is your duty to make sure that no one feels demoralised or rejected because of the systems you build What a beautiful quip. What if I'm building driving theory testing software? That's a very on the nose example. What about ticketing systems? Reminder app? TODO app? Wishlist functionality?
- programzeta 3y ago
  Thank you for asking this, it helped tease out and crystalize some thoughts I’ve had about the difference in tenor between computer programming and software engineering. I hope these off-the-cuff answers help explain why this doesn’t feel quippy to me; they are specific in scope but those scopes are common. — Write clear error messages that provide a way forward. Accept your system will have bugs, and ensure the system state is communicated to the user so they know if their TODO/Test/Reminder/Wish was stored/updated/deleted. Do your utmost to prevent data loss - even when that data hasn’t been formally introduced to your data storage of choice. Developers should not worry about their sprints being blown because they have to use your APIs. Teams trying to pass off tasks or getting special commendations for dealing with your software should be embarrassing. If developers are wrapping your API in their API, are they doing it because they need the abstraction or because abstracting it once and tracking changes is easier than using it? Ensure there are logs in place to assist debugging and documentation catered towards end-users, operations, support, and developers. Track relevant metrics to allow for automated fixes and manual intervention so users aren’t the ones having to remind you your software is broken. Every piece of software has a user - a person, an organization, other code - and software that doesn’t make the user’s life easier increases the chance they’ll stop using it. Or worse, start using it incorrectly!
lijok 3y ago
I would argue it's actually an educational problem, not an incentive problem. Most people (made up stat) would struggle to name/describe any disabilities beyond immobility, blindness and maybe handful of others. Then add in the lack of tools and aids (in the form of popular references, guides and QA forums) available and you have a problem.
quickthrower2 3y ago
That is said as if engineers have exactly zero influence. We are hired to build stuff (and often wearing many hats: UX, design, architecture, market research etc.). I bet if someone said "you have to use Win11 and not allowed a mac" there would be a revolution at many companies :-)

throwawa14223 3y ago

Or other people don't believe it to be a deontological style duty.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
I don’t disagree with you, however we are talking about real people in society, not a theoretical philosophical system. I’m unaware of any wide scale explicitly adopted philosophy wherein there is zero responsibility from individuals to care for others or society. I am curious though what you would describe as your personal philosophy, or if you’re not talking about yourself then what ethics framework are you referring to living inside that does not have a normative component. Maybe a better way to ask it is: what relativistic philosophy is dominant enough or otherwise adopted to such an extent that people are able to functionally live underneath it without any type of a-priori responsibility to others. What I DO see however are people who reject responsibility for others, yet accept or even demand support from others - even if it’s tacit - and then hold a position like you describe. So I remain suspect of anyone promoting some extreme version of individualism, as it conflicts with not only biology, but the entire history of societies and philosophies.

coffeebeqn 3y ago

That will never happen? Ergo government regulations

josephg 3y ago

> Until the financial incentives of investors, employees and customers align this will never be a priority In some parts of the world, disabled people can sue businesses over accessibility issues. People complain about the “disability mafia” shaking down businesses, but I think it might be the only way to align incentives to actually get these problems reliably addressed.

Wowfunhappy 3y ago
> People complain about the “disability mafia” shaking down businesses, but I think it might be the only way to align incentives to actually get these problems reliably addressed. But IMO the other side of this is also tricky, because you don't want companies to respond by removing services for everyone. There was an article on here the other day about how a town had a non-ADA-compliant crosswalk. Fearing a lawsuit, the town addressed the issue... by removing the crosswalk. (You could still cross the street—with a wheelchair, even—but you had to walk much further to do so.) I also remember the article about the California university—was it Berkley?—where some professors posted their lectures freely online for members of the public. Of course, they didn't have the resources to go through and add subtitles—these lectures were for non-students, they didn't generate any revenue—and the university got sued. Obviously, they responded by pulling down the lectures. Situations like these just make everything worse for everyone. How do we write regulations which avoid that?
- zo1 3y ago
  You make it illegal for people to profit off of the regulation? Make it so the only "money" they get is in the form of paying doctors, psychiatrists and counselors. Raise the bar to prove that monetary compensation is needed. Also, stop using this mechanism to "punish" companies. Punish them by forcing them to comply, not by taking money from them and giving it to victims. That part is the one that creates a perverse incentive for people to take advantage. Edit. Make it so it's legal to sue people that profit (money) off of this, at least the lawyers involved or ones that advertise these kinds of services. So many ways to solve it. Too bad we as a society are stuck in a rut and can't undo bad choices or change direction easily. If you go down this path, be prepared for the onslaught of "you hate the disabled" from the entrenched interests. Some of which will be plain old disability advocacy groups that generally do good but also got stuck in this path and are captured by profit-seekers.

CoastalCoder 3y ago

> it is your duty to make sure that no one feels demoralised or rejected because of the systems you build. Making such an assertion is easy. In fact, I've heard many, incompatible claims about duties that supposedly apply to me. Mostly without supporting arguments.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
It's true, there's equal objective "support" for normative ethics claims across the board. So you can prove Nazi fascism is "correct" using the same process that you would to prove altruistic liberalism. Given that existential nihilism concludes with "it's up to you to choose what is right" my question to you is: Why would you actively choose a position that would be considered anti-social instead of a position that would be considered pro-social if they have the same objective grounding?
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Not everyone is social. Some people want to build what they want even if that means a group of people will be excluded.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    This is simply saying that you do not have, and do not desire to acquire, the emotional capacity to be satisfied with the social trade offs of voluntary subordination of a portion of your own personal desires to benefit the desires of others who may also want to commune with you. So if your proof claim is simply “I don’t want to” then it’s entirely ignoring the question with the idea that it’s not your choice anyway - you’re just born that way - which is not a relativistic statement. In fact it’s a biological determinism argument and if you would like to go down that hole I think it would yield that your claimed antisocial “preference” is extremely rare historically - to the extent where as an outlier it’s questionable if it is an evolutionary fitness trait or if it’s ultimately supporting a genetic brick wall.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago

zer8k 3y ago

> it is your duty to make sure that no one feels demoralised or rejected because of the systems you build. This is the most dangerous line of thinking and one of the many reasons people are tiring of woke-ism. Most reasonable people agree accommodations for the disabled are both smart from a business perspective, and kind to patrons in general. To reframe having objections to this as a "demoralization" and "rejection" that needs "special training" to understand seems more like the schizophrenic sociologists are off their meds again. Importantly, I have no duty to anyone except my family. I am not obligated by anyone to do anything for you. This is not to be interpreted as me not having empathy for the disabled. But it is not my obligation to do anything about it. I have worked specifically in this industry helping the visually impaired navigate websites better. However, I cannot afford to do such a design for my own personal sites. These types of prescriptive ultimatums are exhausting and when they're codified into law they have an unintended chilling effect.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
[flagged]
majewsky 3y ago
> Most reasonable people agree accommodations for the disabled are both smart from a business perspective, and kind to patrons in general. If that were true, then given the evidence presented in the post and in this thread, the corollary would be that a significant amount of large businesses are run by unreasonable people.

lijok 3y ago

> it is your duty to make sure that no one feels demoralised or rejected because of the systems you build What a beautiful quip. What if I'm building driving theory testing software? That's a very on the nose example. What about ticketing systems? Reminder app? TODO app? Wishlist functionality?

programzeta 3y ago
Thank you for asking this, it helped tease out and crystalize some thoughts I’ve had about the difference in tenor between computer programming and software engineering. I hope these off-the-cuff answers help explain why this doesn’t feel quippy to me; they are specific in scope but those scopes are common. — Write clear error messages that provide a way forward. Accept your system will have bugs, and ensure the system state is communicated to the user so they know if their TODO/Test/Reminder/Wish was stored/updated/deleted. Do your utmost to prevent data loss - even when that data hasn’t been formally introduced to your data storage of choice. Developers should not worry about their sprints being blown because they have to use your APIs. Teams trying to pass off tasks or getting special commendations for dealing with your software should be embarrassing. If developers are wrapping your API in their API, are they doing it because they need the abstraction or because abstracting it once and tracking changes is easier than using it? Ensure there are logs in place to assist debugging and documentation catered towards end-users, operations, support, and developers. Track relevant metrics to allow for automated fixes and manual intervention so users aren’t the ones having to remind you your software is broken. Every piece of software has a user - a person, an organization, other code - and software that doesn’t make the user’s life easier increases the chance they’ll stop using it. Or worse, start using it incorrectly!

lijok 3y ago

I would argue it's actually an educational problem, not an incentive problem. Most people (made up stat) would struggle to name/describe any disabilities beyond immobility, blindness and maybe handful of others. Then add in the lack of tools and aids (in the form of popular references, guides and QA forums) available and you have a problem.

quickthrower2 3y ago

That is said as if engineers have exactly zero influence. We are hired to build stuff (and often wearing many hats: UX, design, architecture, market research etc.). I bet if someone said "you have to use Win11 and not allowed a mac" there would be a revolution at many companies :-)