2 ms·
It's not about saving costs. When you don't know how you're gonna pay next month salaries and bills, you don't have mental capacity to think about screen reader
by rmbyrro 3y ago
It's not about saving costs. When you don't know how you're gonna pay next month salaries and bills, you don't have mental capacity to think about screen readers, font sizes or whatever
- tomrod 3y agoAgreed, despite your justifications being cost-driven. A business is supposed to deliver. Accessibility is part of that. Much like we wouldn't accept rotten food at a restaurant in whole or in part, we shouldn't be okay with leaving out accessibility to at least some standard. If a restaurant can't deliver and serves rotten food, we should be okay with it going out of business. This holds for software companies that view accessibility as technical debt/#todo items. Especially web accessibility standards are so tenplatizable and test driven now, there really is no excuse.
- rmbyrro 3y agoYour comparison is flawed, in my opinion. What you're saying is equivalent to a restaurant owner who doesn't serve meals adequate to allergic people is a jerk and should go out of business.
- tomrod 3y agoI disagree from a conceptual/philosophical perspective (broken accessibility is bad delivery, not just occasional mishap/edge case for some small set of customer) and from a practical perspective. It's not an occasional customer, it's a huge chunk of the marketplace. Here are some stats: https://themeisle.com/blog/web-accessibility-statistics/ https://themeisle.com/blog/web-accessibility-statistics/ I don't think software shop owners that are ignorant of or ignoring accessibility are necessarily jerks. Before being informed, they are transgressive to good sense; after being informed, immoral. How they act directly towards someone is what defines whether they are a jerk or not, and that, in my mind, is not really connected to the conversation.