4 ms·

>Accessibility seems to be a blind spot for most in tech because we don’t think disability will happen to us, or if it does, it will be a long time from now. I

>Accessibility seems to be a blind spot for most in tech because we don’t think disability will happen to us, or if it does, it will be a long time from now. I strongly disagree, and I worry that people are now trained to think the worst of themselves. Abledness is the Chrome of people: we code for the mainstream, the healthy, able people, and then if we have time we add support for the others. I don't think this is evil, or even wrong: it's a wise use of limited resources. There are far, far more error modes in a system (like the human body) than non-error modes. That's why people with disabilities really are more dependent on others. Like in the OP's case, they (quite reasonably) suggested that he get someone to help him on the phone. Why is that bad? I mean, consider the "disability" of not speaking the supported natural languages. Are all customer service teams supposed to speak all natural languages? Instead of self-flagellating, or flagellating orgs and govs for not covering an infinite number of issues, I think you should instead volunteer to be a helper for someone with a disability. If more people did that, then this issue would be all but moot. Putting the burden on service providers to do the job your friends, family, or helpers should be doing for the disabled doesn't seem fair. (And I say this as someone with a strong bias against central authority).

mplewis 3y ago
It is not a wise use of limited resources when we aim to build a society that serves all. A human without access to basic civilization is not an "error mode." They are a person that we need to help. Human civilization doesn't have to be a world where those with means get to enjoy consumption while those without starve. We have the resources to do better by everyone, not only the abled.
- javajosh 3y ago
  The error modes to which I refer are not people, but bodily injury and disease. Your words are the empty product of a mind addicted to the sensation of outrage. Judgemental idealists have caused more damage to the world in the name of compassion and love than any other class of people. May you continue to use your rhetoric proudly, so that it may continue to serve as a warning to others.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    > Judgemental idealists have caused more damage to the world in the name of compassion and love than any other class of people. Are you counting eugenicists as 'judgmental idealists'? What about death penalty supporters/tough justice advocates? Zero-tolerance school administrators? Abstinence-only-sex-ed proclaimers? Think-of-the-children law pushers that get teens stuck on sex-offender lists? All-human-life-is-sacred religious groups that have made it so that our pets can die in peace, dignity, and without suffering but elderly humans have to suffer in agony for years and then get tortured to death by 'life saving efforts' at the very end? Those judgmental idealists? Certainly not the ones who simply say that disabled people should be able to access public spaces.
    - javajosh 3y ago
      There has to be room in the conversation between extremes. He's saying "everything" and accusing me of saying "nothing" when I'm saying "everything is impossible; something is possible."
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        It seems you are the one pushing extremes and calling it moderation.
burnished 3y ago
Consider that everyone experiences being less capable at various points and to various degrees, even in an otherwise healthy life; injured, ill, tired, carrying too many groceries, bad breakup etc. Designing for accessibility helps everyone. I attended a lecture on the topic and an example I found compelling was curb cuts - a person in a wheelchair makes the need obvious, but they are good to have for a variety of other reasons; pushing something with wheels, hurt ankle, being sick or absolutely ancient etc. I agree that we don't need to self flagellate or see ourselves as deficient, design is hard after all.
- javajosh 3y ago
  Don't forget being pregnant or having to lug around a baby after it's born! Which is not an error mode. I'm well aware that "disability" is something we all go through; but my central point stands. It's not possible to accommodate all or even most types of disabilities and its reasonable to expect individual disabled people to BYOH (bring your own helper) in many cases, such as the OP's case of a speech disability wanting to do business over the phone. In other cases, like with ramps, BYOH won't help so its reasonable to expect/regulate those measures.

mplewis 3y ago

It is not a wise use of limited resources when we aim to build a society that serves all. A human without access to basic civilization is not an "error mode." They are a person that we need to help. Human civilization doesn't have to be a world where those with means get to enjoy consumption while those without starve. We have the resources to do better by everyone, not only the abled.

javajosh 3y ago
The error modes to which I refer are not people, but bodily injury and disease. Your words are the empty product of a mind addicted to the sensation of outrage. Judgemental idealists have caused more damage to the world in the name of compassion and love than any other class of people. May you continue to use your rhetoric proudly, so that it may continue to serve as a warning to others.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  > Judgemental idealists have caused more damage to the world in the name of compassion and love than any other class of people. Are you counting eugenicists as 'judgmental idealists'? What about death penalty supporters/tough justice advocates? Zero-tolerance school administrators? Abstinence-only-sex-ed proclaimers? Think-of-the-children law pushers that get teens stuck on sex-offender lists? All-human-life-is-sacred religious groups that have made it so that our pets can die in peace, dignity, and without suffering but elderly humans have to suffer in agony for years and then get tortured to death by 'life saving efforts' at the very end? Those judgmental idealists? Certainly not the ones who simply say that disabled people should be able to access public spaces.
  - javajosh 3y ago
    There has to be room in the conversation between extremes. He's saying "everything" and accusing me of saying "nothing" when I'm saying "everything is impossible; something is possible."
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      It seems you are the one pushing extremes and calling it moderation.

burnished 3y ago

Consider that everyone experiences being less capable at various points and to various degrees, even in an otherwise healthy life; injured, ill, tired, carrying too many groceries, bad breakup etc. Designing for accessibility helps everyone. I attended a lecture on the topic and an example I found compelling was curb cuts - a person in a wheelchair makes the need obvious, but they are good to have for a variety of other reasons; pushing something with wheels, hurt ankle, being sick or absolutely ancient etc. I agree that we don't need to self flagellate or see ourselves as deficient, design is hard after all.

javajosh 3y ago
Don't forget being pregnant or having to lug around a baby after it's born! Which is not an error mode. I'm well aware that "disability" is something we all go through; but my central point stands. It's not possible to accommodate all or even most types of disabilities and its reasonable to expect individual disabled people to BYOH (bring your own helper) in many cases, such as the OP's case of a speech disability wanting to do business over the phone. In other cases, like with ramps, BYOH won't help so its reasonable to expect/regulate those measures.