3 ms·
I took from it that [the designers] are all mouth and no trousers – which is fairly common. But "the poor disabled people" seems patronising.
by askew 2y ago
I took from it that [the designers] are all mouth and no trousers – which is fairly common. But "the poor disabled people" seems patronising.
- BrandonMarc 2y agoI believe that was the commenter's point - that the designers described patronizingly virtue signal about their accessibility priorities, while their other decisions are troublesome.
- inopinatus 2y agoIt is a patronising sentiment, but adjacent tonal cues suggest GGGP is offering it ironically, thus in ridicule of performative compliance. On flipside, note that many regulations - in any human domain - are oriented to raise the level of the worst performing, not to support the efforts of the best or to optimise the middle.
- guappa 2y agoYes very patronising, a terrible attitude really. Which is why I criticise it. Also I'm disabled myself, although not in a way that requires any adaptation to use a computer. But I of course notice these things a bit more than average; and I get to hear my elderly father's complaints about software that he can't use because of inaccessible design. Of course a designer should be qualified and notice these things even more… but all they do is move buttons around and disable copy paste so that even fully abled people have a hard time using our software between versions.