I wouldn't go that far. But "this lacks accessibility" isn't sufficient reason to rule something out, imo. It's better for a piece of software to exist, without accessibility accommodations, than it is for it to not exist at all.
No, there's a tradeoff. If non-accessible software outcompetes and crowds out accessible software, that degrades the ability of people who need accessible software to use their computers. It is entirely reasonable for people who think that people with disabilities should have equal access to technology to advocate against the development of software without accessibility features.
It's a bit sad that something like an iMessage client for Android gets so many people here passionate about the ethics of access to platforms, but you get downvoted pointing out that certain tools/strategies for building software can leave whole classes of people out of computing due to factors entirely out of their control.
Well, here in Europe you can get sued if you provide a non-accessible software. (Games are excluded and a photo editor can of course assume that the user can see etc.)
It seemed like you were criticizing the "accessibility song and dance that happens every time a GUI library is the topic", as if you think accessibility concerns are over-blown. If that wasn't your intention, I suggest you clarify what you actually mean.
It seems this might not be the case for American English, but "song and dance" is only ever dismissive in British English. The implication is that the complaints are a needless distraction, due to the relative insignificance of the topic.
Accepting this, for the sake of argument: sounds like warnings such as jakelazaroff's are a good thing then, to make sure creators are informed enough to decide.
I agree, which ... is why jakelazaroff is warning that ImGui is meant for internal custom tools, not tools where things like accessibility is a concern.
Accessibility is only not a concern for internal custom tools if you're certain you're not going to hire anybody with a disability that requires those accessibility features. (You shouldn't be certain of this, because it means you're probably breaking the law.)
I wouldn't go that far. But "this lacks accessibility" isn't sufficient reason to rule something out, imo. It's better for a piece of software to exist, without accessibility accommodations, than it is for it to not exist at all.
No, there's a tradeoff. If non-accessible software outcompetes and crowds out accessible software, that degrades the ability of people who need accessible software to use their computers. It is entirely reasonable for people who think that people with disabilities should have equal access to technology to advocate against the development of software without accessibility features.
It's a bit sad that something like an iMessage client for Android gets so many people here passionate about the ethics of access to platforms, but you get downvoted pointing out that certain tools/strategies for building software can leave whole classes of people out of computing due to factors entirely out of their control.
1 reply →
Well, here in Europe you can get sued if you provide a non-accessible software. (Games are excluded and a photo editor can of course assume that the user can see etc.)
What answer are you expecting? This question is borderline flame bait.
It seemed like you were criticizing the "accessibility song and dance that happens every time a GUI library is the topic", as if you think accessibility concerns are over-blown. If that wasn't your intention, I suggest you clarify what you actually mean.
It seems this might not be the case for American English, but "song and dance" is only ever dismissive in British English. The implication is that the complaints are a needless distraction, due to the relative insignificance of the topic.
Yes, that’s the case for American English too.
This is for the creators to decide. Nobody else has a say, really.
Accepting this, for the sake of argument: sounds like warnings such as jakelazaroff's are a good thing then, to make sure creators are informed enough to decide.
Except the law in Europe.
Probably not for internal custom tools.
I agree, which ... is why jakelazaroff is warning that ImGui is meant for internal custom tools, not tools where things like accessibility is a concern.
Accessibility is only not a concern for internal custom tools if you're certain you're not going to hire anybody with a disability that requires those accessibility features. (You shouldn't be certain of this, because it means you're probably breaking the law.)
3 replies →