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.
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.