3 ms·

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

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

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.