Comment by bigstrat2003
3 years ago
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.
And you get downvoted for pointing out that here in Europe you're required by law to make software accessible. (At least in theory, don't know if it's enforced at all.)
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.)