5 ms·

In many cases, you can show how designing for disabled users improves the experience of an average user. For example, anything that reduces cognitive load for

In many cases, you can show how designing for disabled users improves the experience of an average user. For example, anything that reduces cognitive load for a disabled user increases the efficiency of an average user. The average user isn't necessarily aware of the cognitive load because their brains are able to compensate for it automatically. But this compensation still uses resources that could be used elsewhere. This is also why involving disabled users in the testing process is advantageous. An average user can automatically compensate for many problems, and may not even notice what is causing the problem. A disabled user will not have the luxury of ignoring problems, resulting in more accurate feedback.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> In many cases, you can show how designing for disabled users improves the experience of an average user. Unfortunately, that is the opposite of what many companies aim for. Attention economy means money isn't made on making user experience better and more efficient, but rather worse and less efficient, because money is made through friction this generates. I've come to call accessibility important to regular users because it's the only tool we have that has enough moral and legal backing to make companies deliver more value, even as they desperately try not to.
- growingkittens 3y ago
  Using disability as a baseball bat results in companies forming adversarial relationships with disabled people. If the goal is simply to create more value for a company that is built to make an inefficient product, is it worth using disabled people in this way?
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    You can't "use disability as a baseball bat". Pressuring company to care for accessibility is done primarily to benefit the disabled. I'm just pointing out that it also happens to be the last lifeline for the rest of us. There's the common meme of curb cutting, that you should care about accessibility because it helps everyone. My point is that the companies don't need to be gently nudged into cutting curbs; they already actively want to replace curbs with 2-meter fences, so they can put toll booths at regular intervals. Accessibility is the morally and legally backed way you can force them, kicking and screaming to make a cut curb instead, and as a side effect, prevent them from putting up the fence.
    - growingkittens 3y ago
      You describe using disability as a tool: >it's the only tool we have that has enough moral and legal backing to make companies deliver more value I describe your use of disability as a moral and legal baseball bat (tool). Speak softly and carry a big stick: the big stick is disability protections. Using disability as an moral and legal offensive weapon incentivises companies to erode the rights of disabled people and prevent the advancement of new rights. Sure, some product somewhere is temporarily friendlier to disabled people: and the world will remain blind to the advantages that disabled people can bring to the table. The system will continue to design poor products with a veneer of usability, technically meeting moral and legal requirements instead of failing like it should. Nothing will change for the better. Disability as a baseball bat is simply the only tool that you're familiar with using, because it is easy to use.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> In many cases, you can show how designing for disabled users improves the experience of an average user. Unfortunately, that is the opposite of what many companies aim for. Attention economy means money isn't made on making user experience better and more efficient, but rather worse and less efficient, because money is made through friction this generates. I've come to call accessibility important to regular users because it's the only tool we have that has enough moral and legal backing to make companies deliver more value, even as they desperately try not to.

growingkittens 3y ago
Using disability as a baseball bat results in companies forming adversarial relationships with disabled people. If the goal is simply to create more value for a company that is built to make an inefficient product, is it worth using disabled people in this way?
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  You can't "use disability as a baseball bat". Pressuring company to care for accessibility is done primarily to benefit the disabled. I'm just pointing out that it also happens to be the last lifeline for the rest of us. There's the common meme of curb cutting, that you should care about accessibility because it helps everyone. My point is that the companies don't need to be gently nudged into cutting curbs; they already actively want to replace curbs with 2-meter fences, so they can put toll booths at regular intervals. Accessibility is the morally and legally backed way you can force them, kicking and screaming to make a cut curb instead, and as a side effect, prevent them from putting up the fence.
  - growingkittens 3y ago
    You describe using disability as a tool: >it's the only tool we have that has enough moral and legal backing to make companies deliver more value I describe your use of disability as a moral and legal baseball bat (tool). Speak softly and carry a big stick: the big stick is disability protections. Using disability as an moral and legal offensive weapon incentivises companies to erode the rights of disabled people and prevent the advancement of new rights. Sure, some product somewhere is temporarily friendlier to disabled people: and the world will remain blind to the advantages that disabled people can bring to the table. The system will continue to design poor products with a veneer of usability, technically meeting moral and legal requirements instead of failing like it should. Nothing will change for the better. Disability as a baseball bat is simply the only tool that you're familiar with using, because it is easy to use.