Interesting. Is this a civil rights issue or a libertarian issue? The libertarian in me says, "let the restaurants that don't comply lose their business". But then I think, would I feel the same about businesses (and government agencies!) that disallowed blacks/jews/gays/etc? I lean to the latter, accepting that changing everyone will take time.
The problem with the libertarian view that businesses that purposefully exclude some customers will lose business, and so eventually disappear from the market, is that it only actually works that way if the businesses exclude a large customer base, and there aren't compensating factors to make up for the loss.
That's why economic forces didn't do much to open up things for blacks in the south between the Civil War and the era of Federal civil rights law. If you have a "No Coloreds" policy, and the store down the road does not then yes, they'll get the black business you are giving up--but they are giving up to you the business of people who do not want to shop around black people. The latter is worth more to the bottom line than the former, so you'll actually likely come out ahead economically with a "No Coloreds" sign hanging out in front of your shop.
Then that business down the road decides they'd rather have half of the whites-who-don't-want-to-shop-around-blacks business rather than all of the black business, and out comes the "Whites Only" sign on their store. Yes, they have less total customers after the change, but the white customers are wealthier than the black customers and that makes up for the difference in quantity.
Now it gets interesting. The mathematics of this kind of discrimination turn out to be the same as the mathematics of a boycott of a small country by the rest of the world. (I don't remember where I saw this--it might have been in Posner's "Economic Analysis of Law"). Unless the small country is completely self-sufficient, it loses badly. The net result is the discrimination keeps the blacks poor, and so they don't as a group rise to the point where the stores gain by integrating.
Humans in small groups of approximately equal status and means where everyone knows everyone else simply do not behave the same as humans in very large groups of widely varying status and means where people only know a small part of the group. Libertarianism probably works great in the former case, but not in the latter.
Do you think there is a similar explanation as to why Scotland's economic fortunes haven't actually improved over the last 304 years despite being in a union with England which promised and still promises that there is economic benefit for Scotland to be in a union with England. Is it possible that they are deliberately or through their own ignorance/incompetence be keeping Scotland poor.
Thats due to the barnett formula which was introduced in part to deal with poverty north of the border. It was meant as a temporary measure and was soooo effective that we still use it.
Are you bending over backwards doing the wrong things? Its not a question of simply giving money to Scotland - that doesn't help Scotland. It keeps us poor just like keeping people on benefits isn't actually good for them but helping them get into work and to create their own money is good for them.
Its the little and big decisions that may have nothing to do with what money is spent where that keep Scotland where it is.
Is the barnett formula continuing so that unionists can say look we're trying to help but your still not pulling your weight, whilst making bad decisions that actually keep Scotland poor?
do you have a source or reference for this effect? I'd love to be able to reference it, but this HN post might be stretching the definition of a reference...
Actually, the economics didn't work out to favor discrimination. The change was not as slow as many people liked, of course, but the change was there. Where discrimination was really entrenched and difficult to change was in government. It was racist government policies that really kept segments of the population down, and in fact, many of those racist policies still exist today. For instance, the primary motivators of the anti-drug and anti-gun laws were racist. "Saturday night specials" were regulated because they were popular among poor blacks for self defense. The sawed off shotgun, which is actually safer (because the shorter barrel means wider shot spread and makes the firearm less lethal) ware popular among italians who wanted protection from the mob, so the mob leaned on white politicians and got them banned, good for the mob, and served white political ambitions, etc.
Where there has been no supply (the small country example) blacks, for instance, often would band together and form businesses that served their community. This was inhibited by government regulations that would often deny them the "license" needed to operate that business... but it was not economics that kept those businesses from forming, it was regulation. (And where there wasn't regulation, the businesses would form.)
I'm handicapped (different issue). I spend a LOT of time online and do a lot via internet. For someone who has physical limitations, being able to do things online is a godsend. My life would basically not be manageable without it. So I think if you have a physical limitation of a sort where the web is basically saying "fuck you and the horse you road in on", I imagine that's a real serious problem. I imagine it's about like being invisibly restricted to the Dark Ages while everyone around you enjoys modern life. I would probably be postal rather quickly.
Having done A LOT of accessibility work I've come to the conclusion that it's extremely difficult to achieve universal accessibility. At first it seems like a it's all about alt tags, but those don't help users with poor reading comprehension, for example. (Dyslexics, some deaf.)
Lately I've been wondering if a better approach would be to provide an API to functionality, and let the disabled or their advocates build interfaces for themselves. That way they'd get exactly what they need. Mouse-free versions, high-contrast versions, simplified text versions... All could be built ane everyone would be happy. Companies could even support these efforts with open source or donations or training.
I have been thinking alot on this approach the last few months. I would like a "smartphone" that had a custom interface for my low vision problems. I think it would be very useful to have an iPhone sized device (all touch screen, no keyboard) with a custom UI for my needs. It doesn't need an app for everything. Just competing in the "feature phone" space would be very useful to me. Large fonts, high contrast, a dashboard that only shows info that has changed, not "a widget for everything all the time". This is on my short list of projects to investigate. Contact me if you have some input. thanks
I honestly am not technically skilled/knowledgeable enough to know how to answer that. I did homeschool my special needs sons and have concluded that supporting "diversity" in some manner tends to widen your audience without specifically bringing up the issue of whether or not someone is handicapped. Many people who would qualify for some label or other have never been formally diagnosed and in many cases they do not want a formal diagnosis (because it is stigmatizing, could hurt their career and so on). Allowing for and supporting a wide variety of personal preferences can make things more accessible and convenient for a great many people in a way which does not make handicapped people feel singled out. Blending is often very psychologically important for people with handicaps and has significant social/practical benefits.
For example: No restaurant will go bankrupt or even perceptibly lose money because blind people can’t read the menu on their website. There are too few of them.
Also: Getting accessibility right would be costly and complicated for those restaurants. The vast majority of restaurant owners knows nothing about accessibility in the web, they would have to hire someone who does.
Creating a successful product means more often than not picking the commonly used stuff and leaving everything else out. The same dynamic is at play here, the only difference is that the affected people have no choice.
The incentives are set up in a way to favor inaccessible websites. I don’t see how the market can solve this problem.
For example: No restaurant will go bankrupt or even perceptibly lose money because blind people can’t read the menu on their website. There are too few of them.
Old people often have money. They also tend to have eyesight issues and other physical limitations. At the moment, old people are underrepresented online. Give it a few years and that won't likely remain true. At some point, making it easier for people with eyesight issues to access your site may become a much bigger issue. Some businesses may not realize it is impacting them, but I strongly suspect it will seriously begin to impact them in the not too distant future.
A website that is accessible for (most) old people is not automatically also accessible for, say, the blind. I fear, however, that you might be overlooking the point and get lost in small details: If something is a lot of work and only brings very few more customers, market mechanisms are no solution.
The stars may align every once in a while and circumstances may create a situation where the same improvement also benefits a different and much larger group of people but you can’t take that for granted.
No, I'm well aware of that point. I'm also aware that what is easily accessibly for people with limitations is frequently more easy to use for "normal" people. As someone with a real serious handicap who finally was able to get a normal job (after many years of basically being unemployable), I am keenly aware of a) the ways in which my differences set me apart from others and b) the ways in which so many "normal" people are also handicapped but don't frame it that way. I'm strongly convinced that "personal preferences" are typically rooted in ease of use in the face of some issue or other which may not be fully acknowledged as a handicap. But that's a rather complicated discussion that perhaps would not be appreciated here: People who view themselves as "not handicapped" tend to get rather defensive if someone suggests they really aren't that different from someone like me.
I think you didn't quite understand me or else you are bringing up a point that has nothing to do with the discussion. I was talking about the viability of market mechanisms, not the difference between being disabled and not being disabled. I didn't use the words disabled, handicapped or normal once in my comment. It was completely abstract.
No, I understood you perfectly. It's me that is very frequently not understood at all. I don't happen to see my points (about changing demographics, the mental models we use to frame such issues, and so on) as unrelated. It is often hopeless to try to get others to see why those things can matter a whole lot. It's perhaps best to end this exchange here, as neither side is likely to learn anything or be swayed.
I’m really not sure what point you are trying to make. What do you want to tell me? What do you want to convince me of? I don’t feel very strongly about the points I was making and I’m certainly willing to be convinced, I just don’t know of what.
Let me just recap the point I was trying to make: If there are situations where something is not accessible to a small group of people (for whatever reason) and making it accessible would be a lot of effort (for whatever reason) then market mechanisms alone are likely not sufficient to make that something accessible.
I was not advocating alternatives to market mechanisms (I was trying to not advocate anything), I was trying to make no value judgments about that situation.
I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I was merely trying to communicate that I am, in fact, aware of the point you are making and it in no way changes the point I was making. Others in this discussion have made the same basic point I was making -- that this is more widespread and relevant than many people seem to think -- without getting downvoted or argued with. I have no idea why my remarks got such a reaction. I have no idea what the disconnect is in that regard.
I now have a full-time paid job for the first time in my life and I have found that when I talk to people long enough, everyone at work has some issue or other. I have had conversations with someone at work who a) had previously told me they have a medical condition (diabetes) which can be significantly impacted by diet and then b) later essentially expressed pity for me that I must limit my diet as it was something they could not relate to because they "could eat anything". Yeah, they could -- and take drugs to deal with the consequences. Or, with a different mental model, they could be pickier about their diet and take less medication. They aren't as different from me as they think they are, they simply frame their own issue differently from mine and deal with their problem differently from my approach -- and then they frame themselves in their own mind as "normal, healthy" and me as "handicapped" when in reality we are both dealing in part with the exact same issue as we both have blood sugar problems. I have also seen parents admit they have some of the same traits as their kids but they swear they don't have Asperger's while labeling their child as "having Asperger's". Why? Because it's stigmatizing and would hurt their career to self-identify as a "handicapped" person worthy of a label. Such parents are typically pretty hostile towards me and my attempts to say "so if you and your child are not so very different, why does the child deserve a stigmatizing label but you do not?" I have two kids who both fit the profile for ASD. I do not say they "have Asperger's". For one thing, that makes as much sense to me as saying "they have male" or "they have Caucasian". No, they are male and they are Caucasian and they fit the profile for certain traits that some people would give the label "Asperger's Syndrome". Not labeling them or stigmatizing them has been a significant part of how I have helped them learn to play to their strengths and accommodate their weaknesses without winding up mentally and logistically trapped into being "the pathetic handicapped person".
Personal limitations are very widespread. We all have them. As we grow older, we tend to acquire more of them. Making things more generally usable is not really about jumping through hoops to make big accommodations for a small number of people. And when people finally wrap their brain around that and do something about it, it begins bringing down barriers in a way which allows "handicapped" people to live more normally without anyone focusing on their handicap. Yes, some handicaps, like being blind, won't be as easily remedied or readily supported as others. But vision problems are more widespread than people seem to think. And making things visually accessible tends to also benefit "normal" people who don't particularly think of themselves as "handicapped".
Thanks for asking. I hope that is clearer to you but I really don't understand what the disconnect is so I am not confident it is.
Because ugh isn't trying to convince you of anything, but you seem to be trying to convince him, over and over again, at increasing length, that people are different and that what some people call "handicaps" are really just part of a range of characteristics, and each of us as people are a large set of those which are often accommodated for.
He's just saying that there's no economic incentive to accommodate for variations in people that there's no market incentive to accommodate for, and that may or may not be a problem. He seems honestly confused at why that's setting you off.
No, that's not it at all. Nothing has "set me off". I know that the cost may be too high to make everything work perfectly for people who are (for example) blind. However, eyesight issues are not just limited to people who are blind. So I don't see any reason to say "it's just a handful of blind people" because it's really not. Perfect vision is the exception, not the norm.
I've done my best to back out of the conversation as gracefully as possible without saying "yes, you're right, it's just a handful of blind people" because I don't think that is true. Give me a way to disengage that doesn't involve saying "yes, you're right, I'm just some twit who didn't know that and I'm simply overreacting" and I will happily take it. I am both baffled and, at this point, highly frustrated at how this whole thing has gone. The increasing attempts to characterize me negatively aren't making me feel any better about it. That's never a good thing.
I just happened to be passing by, and have no dog in this fight. I just don't think ugh has one either. He isn't saying what you think he's saying. I've spent weeks of my life fixing accessibility on government websites (which are the worst) and fighting for strict compliance that others thought wasn't worth it.
My opinion is that it's always worth it to be inclusive when it comes to coding. ugh seems to be implying that extramarket forces should be brought to bear to encourage(or force) accessibility if that is a goal that we want to achieve. If you're fighting with us, what are we fighting about?
If you're fighting with us, what are we fighting about?
See, this is where I feel I am being negatively characterized: I don't think I'm fighting with anyone. Again, if there is a fight, why is it people seem to think I am the only one fighting? It takes two to fight. At this point, I strongly suspect the issue is that I publicly admitted I have a serious handicap and people are basically dismissing me as someone being emotional and irrational, which is one of the reasons people often try to hide their handicaps: It's socially stigmatizing and gets them taken less seriously.
I will try to say this one last time and then attempt to shut up (assuming no one jumps up with any new negative characterizations of me as an individual): I believe that in the future, as the current generation of web-savvy folks age, there will be more incentive to work on this issue and be more accommodating of the typically poor eyesight of older people. Right now, there may be seemingly little incentive to do so. No, that doesn't mean it will be perfect. But we aren't talking about "a handful of blind people".
I don't mean to negatively characterize you as an individual due to your public admission of a serious handicap. I mean to positively characterize ughs comment as adding to the conversation and not being 'who cares about a handful of blind people.' Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Well, I don't have some personal issue with ugh and in my exchanges with him (or her, as the case may be) I basically felt it was a failure to communicate/misunderstanding. I think I said that repeatedly. So I remain baffled as to why two different total strangers felt the need to intercede in this exchange and in both cases they sided with ugh rather than taking a more neutral position. (In case that remark is too subtle, that amounts to casting blame on me whether you intended it or not.) It is possible to jump in where you see trouble and be even handed and not blame either side. I have done it many times.
Thank you for your concern about the welfare of the forum but blaming one side in a misunderstanding is usually not the way to build a more civilized atmosphere. It usually just perpetuates the problem.
I'm not siding with ugh. I don't think he was arguing with you. I find your argument an excellent way to reframe an argument about accessibility into an argument to build a more complete and functional media/communication product. I'll leave it there.
Well, if they get a hundred complaints from potential or former customers saying they won't eat there until it's fixed, something may happen. Some of these problems are only soluble by mass, organized action. Suppose there were a blind guy standing outside your restaurant, handing patrons informative pamphlets? How long would it take for a few infuriated regulars telling him they wouldn't be back till the problem was fixed to get the owner's attention to the problem? Just sayin': squeaky wheels get greased.
Sure. PR fallout or DDoSing support offers additional leverage to mere and minimal lost business.
Especially really large companies don’t want to have an attack surface called “They don’t care about disabled people!” (There are also other reasons why larger companies have more incentives to be accessible.)
Evidently, however, that’s not enough. It’s hard to create public outrage. It’s hard to organize. Hard enough that being hit by outrage or being swamped by phone calls is quite unlikely. It’s a simple numbers game.
People don’t want to organize shitstorms all the time. They have better things to do.
What's costly and complicated about plain old HTML?
Customer: We want a menu on our website.
Developer: We can do that. The meter is running.
Customer: Crikey that meter goes up quickly. Just OCR it! That should be almost free!
Developer: We can do that. The meter is running.
Customer: There are all sorts of speling mistkes! Fix them!
Developer: We can do that. The meter is running.
Customer: Now all the text is right but it looks nothing like the menu! We're a freaking restaurant. We spent thousands of dollars to make the menu look good because it is the freaking menu. Make with that HTML and CSS... stuff!
Developer: We can do that. The meter is running.
Customer: Finally, we're getting somewhere! But the description of Chicken Genovese overlaps with the wine list when viewed on an obsolete browser or a Kindle! Make with the fixings!
The restaurant owners of my example usually don’t even know what HTML is. They have to hire someone to do it for them (that’s the costly part) and they also have to find out who to hire (that’s the complicated part, given that they have no idea about HTML, CSS, Javascript, Flash and accessibility).
This is a civil rights issue, as evidenced by existing case law in Australia: in 2000, the Sydney Olympics organisers were fined $20,000 for discrimination on the basis that their website was not accessible to the visually impaired.
blacks/jews/gays/etc is a different issue entirely. You don't need to do anything special to make your service accessible to them, except perhaps in the case of gay people trying to use your dating site with a 100% straight userbase.
That sort of thing should specifically not be required to cater to. It's an absolutely voluntary set of restrictions. Jews can just go elsewhere.
Just like, as a vegetarian, I can't get much to eat at Ruth's Chris or The Outback or whatever. I just take my business elsewhere — it's a voluntary restriction on my diet. I should live with the consequences.
Jewish law does not allow the manipulation of electricity on the Sabbath, so a Jew would not be allowed to operate an electric lock, or make an electric door open (on purpose).
A Jew can leave lights on, or set things on timers before the Sabbath, but can not do anything with electricity on the Sabbath.
The main one is the prohibition of lighting or extinguishing fire. The vast majority of electricity is generated by burning fuel and using electricity (or turning it off) changes the amount of fuel used.
There are other considerations as well that apply to battery devices, but the main thing is fire.
I think you have that exactly backwards. One of the reason electronic locks have been popular with some Hasidic Jews is because they don't require carrying a key on Sabbath. The locks would be unusable if electricity were a no-no.
The difference in your example is effort - it costs to increase accessibility for people with disabilities, whether it's spending more time on web development or installing a ramp at a building. It's less cost not to do that.
Not allowing blacks/jews/gays is about admittance policies that don't cost, unless they require some sort of infrastructure to be created for them.
It would be good to hear from a UK web designer as to opportunity cost, as accessibility is a legal requirement for .uk sites, if I recall correctly. I imagine if everyone's doing it, it's cheaper from the outset as the pool of web talent is trained in the issue.
I strongly doubt that the handicapped are a large enough group for most businesses to notice the loss of their custom from not being accessible, or the gain from embracing accessibility. If that's true, then the question is whether one wants the handicapped to have access to these places, and what measures are worth doing.
