3 ms·
I wouldn't go that far. But "this lacks accessibility" isn't sufficient reason to rule something out, imo. It's better for a piece of software to exist, without
by bigstrat2003 3y ago
I wouldn't go that far. But "this lacks accessibility" isn't sufficient reason to rule something out, imo. It's better for a piece of software to exist, without accessibility accommodations, than it is for it to not exist at all.
- djur 3y agoNo, there's a tradeoff. If non-accessible software outcompetes and crowds out accessible software, that degrades the ability of people who need accessible software to use their computers. It is entirely reasonable for people who think that people with disabilities should have equal access to technology to advocate against the development of software without accessibility features.
- meepmorp 3y agoIt's a bit sad that something like an iMessage client for Android gets so many people here passionate about the ethics of access to platforms, but you get downvoted pointing out that certain tools/strategies for building software can leave whole classes of people out of computing due to factors entirely out of their control.
- panzi 3y agoAnd you get downvoted for pointing out that here in Europe you're required by law to make software accessible. (At least in theory, don't know if it's enforced at all.)
- panzi 3y agoWell, here in Europe you can get sued if you provide a non-accessible software. (Games are excluded and a photo editor can of course assume that the user can see etc.)