4 ms·

Accessibility and backwards compatibility are different For example, we absolutely still offer infrastructure to walk or bike through NYC. Walking and biking

Accessibility and backwards compatibility are different For example, we absolutely still offer infrastructure to walk or bike through NYC. Walking and biking are more (financially) accessible to people than cars. We also support wheelchair access to places. This is not a tech issue. It is an accessibility issue caused by arguably unnecessary dependencies on tech being asserted I do agree with you that outside of accessibility issues, we should not limit ourselves to low-tech for the sole sake of backwards compatibility

BowBun 3y ago
> We also support wheelchair access to places As of very recently (9/2021), less than a third of MTA stations were wheelchair accessible. I realize I'm nitpicking your point, but I'm illustrating how awful we are at implementing any of these ideals because we are a selfish society. > It is an accessibility issue caused by arguably unnecessary dependencies on tech being asserted I disagree. While the additions may be unnecessary from the point of view that things worked beforehand, technology has increased accessibility for nearly all aspects of life. I think that the benefit greatly outweighs concerns about people who don't yet have access to a smartphone (which is the primary limitation here, right?). Considering how disposable they have become, how ubiquitous wi-fi is, and how vastly $10 smartphones are traded around the globe, I don't see a financial limitation here.
- EricMausler 3y ago
  If wheelchair accessibility is not enough, that supports my point. Your argument would be in the ballpark of "Remove the 1/3 support we do have because accessibility should be traded for maximum convenience of the masses and most people are not wheelchair bound" Financial limitations are only 1 way of creating an accessibility issue It is not just a dependency on owning a smartphone, but also on having it on you, having it charged, having it up to date, having their app installed, having their app up to date, not having any bugs, and using its processing to handle the transaction. These are not trivial concerns, and contesting them is not the same as being against new technology. Where is my government supplied smartphone with free internet and free charging to go along with these requirements? A cheeky question, but not that outlandish I 1000% support using a smartphone as an OPTION but I disagree with it as a requirement. How about just the fact that I do not want to show a line of people the brand new phone I have in my pocket because it might make me a target? Or maybe I don't want people around me to know if I'm apple or android, or maybe I have a private background image I don't want to risk being shown, or even just that my phone is in the middle of an update and I can't use it at the moment? The examples are contrived but my point is that the requirement loses on both ends. I shouldn't need to have it on me, and also it's one of my most personal items that I own and I may not want to take it out in public on demand in order to do activities that have nothing to do with it. There's no need to create all this management effort when previously I could basically just hand the gate person a $20, show my ID, and walk in. If they have a smartphone I can borrow when I reach the end of the line to do smartphone stuff for the sake of utilizing new tech then that would be accessible. Requiring me to supply my own and make sure it's compatible with their system and operational at the moment is not.

BowBun 3y ago

> We also support wheelchair access to places As of very recently (9/2021), less than a third of MTA stations were wheelchair accessible. I realize I'm nitpicking your point, but I'm illustrating how awful we are at implementing any of these ideals because we are a selfish society. > It is an accessibility issue caused by arguably unnecessary dependencies on tech being asserted I disagree. While the additions may be unnecessary from the point of view that things worked beforehand, technology has increased accessibility for nearly all aspects of life. I think that the benefit greatly outweighs concerns about people who don't yet have access to a smartphone (which is the primary limitation here, right?). Considering how disposable they have become, how ubiquitous wi-fi is, and how vastly $10 smartphones are traded around the globe, I don't see a financial limitation here.

EricMausler 3y ago
If wheelchair accessibility is not enough, that supports my point. Your argument would be in the ballpark of "Remove the 1/3 support we do have because accessibility should be traded for maximum convenience of the masses and most people are not wheelchair bound" Financial limitations are only 1 way of creating an accessibility issue It is not just a dependency on owning a smartphone, but also on having it on you, having it charged, having it up to date, having their app installed, having their app up to date, not having any bugs, and using its processing to handle the transaction. These are not trivial concerns, and contesting them is not the same as being against new technology. Where is my government supplied smartphone with free internet and free charging to go along with these requirements? A cheeky question, but not that outlandish I 1000% support using a smartphone as an OPTION but I disagree with it as a requirement. How about just the fact that I do not want to show a line of people the brand new phone I have in my pocket because it might make me a target? Or maybe I don't want people around me to know if I'm apple or android, or maybe I have a private background image I don't want to risk being shown, or even just that my phone is in the middle of an update and I can't use it at the moment? The examples are contrived but my point is that the requirement loses on both ends. I shouldn't need to have it on me, and also it's one of my most personal items that I own and I may not want to take it out in public on demand in order to do activities that have nothing to do with it. There's no need to create all this management effort when previously I could basically just hand the gate person a $20, show my ID, and walk in. If they have a smartphone I can borrow when I reach the end of the line to do smartphone stuff for the sake of utilizing new tech then that would be accessible. Requiring me to supply my own and make sure it's compatible with their system and operational at the moment is not.