4 ms·
Agreed, despite your justifications being cost-driven. A business is supposed to deliver. Accessibility is part of that. Much like we wouldn't accept rotten foo
by tomrod 3y ago
Agreed, 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.