Shouting into the wind
Until the financial incentives of investors, employees and customers align this will never be a priority
Making such an assertion is easy.
In fact, I've heard many, incompatible claims about duties that supposedly apply to me. Mostly without supporting arguments.
Given that existential nihilism concludes with "it's up to you to choose what is right" my question to you is:
Why would you actively choose a position that would be considered anti-social instead of a position that would be considered pro-social if they have the same objective grounding?
So if your proof claim is simply “I don’t want to” then it’s entirely ignoring the question with the idea that it’s not your choice anyway - you’re just born that way - which is not a relativistic statement.
In fact it’s a biological determinism argument and if you would like to go down that hole I think it would yield that your claimed antisocial “preference” is extremely rare historically - to the extent where as an outlier it’s questionable if it is an evolutionary fitness trait or if it’s ultimately supporting a genetic brick wall.
This simplifies away some crucial details about the actual situation.
For example, I have limited time and opportunities. Spending 200 hours making a piece of software more handicap-friendly may mean 200 hours less of being a good parent to my kids. Or working at a homeless shelter.
We can probably agree that all 3 activities are "pro social" in some manner. But I can't tackle all of them. Part of growing up is accepting that you can't do everything.
I'm open to changing my priorities, but not without good justification.
That’s what I’m saying, if you can choose your philosophy, why choose one that is antisocial.
Isn’t anti-social a very loose and subjective term? Using your own example, wouldn’t it be considered anti-social in Nazi Germany to oppose mainstream culture like military parades, Hitler-Jugend etc?
Prosocial: “benefit other people or society as a whole”
Antisocial: “considered to be disruptive to others in society”
It would be pro-social if I donated my wealth to charity, killed myself, and donated my organs... But I don't want to do that.
Does that make me antisocial? Is there no middle ground?
I’m sure even Richard Kuklinski held a door open for someone, at some point
Because one positions imposes significant costs and restrictions, leaving your life significantly worse off.
Paying taxes to support the welfare of others is pro-social, but it means that I am laboring twice as much, instead of relaxing with my friends an family. It means that I am paying for the children of others using resources I would rather devote to my children. Why should I sacrifice my wellbeing for someone I don't know, and might not even like if I met them.
Many behaviors that fall under the Pro-social labor hurt the individual and benefit others.
If they are actually beneficial to the individual, they wouldn't need to be compulsory or the pro-social rhetoric.
Many interfaces, such as git's, use red and green despite the common (?) knowledge that red and blue are the preferred combination for accessibility.
I think most people prefer red and green, though.
So there's incompatible concerns to cater to: do you demoralize most people by switching to blue or do you demoralize the colorblind minority by keeping green? :D
(In the limit, you're going to inevitably hit some bedrock of elitism beyond which it's irrational to dig. Your interface will probably not be usable by dogs, for example.)
I'm not sure what to say here to be honest because you're comparing these two things as equal with "demoralized" being the only downside somehow so lets see what the implications to the people are of such a system, using your own example:
- A disabled person not being able to functionally use a system that is often required for their work
- A non-disabled person being able to functionally use a system that is often required for their work, but the text is a less preferable color
In the first case it will take someone with an involuntary disability longer, with more difficulty, to perform the same task (comprehension) as someone without the involuntary disability
I'm not sure how you could possibly equivocate these - and then further double down on lack of empathy by suggesting that making a website easier to use for risks a slippery slope of irrational accessibility requirements
Unreal that this has to be spelled out
There are quite a few variations of color blindness, so ultimately you want color to just be a hint. Handling the most common case is a partial fix.
In some parts of the world, disabled people can sue businesses over accessibility issues. People complain about the “disability mafia” shaking down businesses, but I think it might be the only way to align incentives to actually get these problems reliably addressed.
But IMO the other side of this is also tricky, because you don't want companies to respond by removing services for everyone.
There was an article on here the other day about how a town had a non-ADA-compliant crosswalk. Fearing a lawsuit, the town addressed the issue... by removing the crosswalk. (You could still cross the street—with a wheelchair, even—but you had to walk much further to do so.)
I also remember the article about the California university—was it Berkley?—where some professors posted their lectures freely online for members of the public. Of course, they didn't have the resources to go through and add subtitles—these lectures were for non-students, they didn't generate any revenue—and the university got sued. Obviously, they responded by pulling down the lectures.
Situations like these just make everything worse for everyone. How do we write regulations which avoid that?
Edit. Make it so it's legal to sue people that profit (money) off of this, at least the lawyers involved or ones that advertise these kinds of services.
So many ways to solve it. Too bad we as a society are stuck in a rut and can't undo bad choices or change direction easily. If you go down this path, be prepared for the onslaught of "you hate the disabled" from the entrenched interests. Some of which will be plain old disability advocacy groups that generally do good but also got stuck in this path and are captured by profit-seekers.
What a beautiful quip.
What if I'm building driving theory testing software? That's a very on the nose example. What about ticketing systems? Reminder app? TODO app? Wishlist functionality?
—
Write clear error messages that provide a way forward. Accept your system will have bugs, and ensure the system state is communicated to the user so they know if their TODO/Test/Reminder/Wish was stored/updated/deleted. Do your utmost to prevent data loss - even when that data hasn’t been formally introduced to your data storage of choice.
Developers should not worry about their sprints being blown because they have to use your APIs. Teams trying to pass off tasks or getting special commendations for dealing with your software should be embarrassing. If developers are wrapping your API in their API, are they doing it because they need the abstraction or because abstracting it once and tracking changes is easier than using it?
Ensure there are logs in place to assist debugging and documentation catered towards end-users, operations, support, and developers. Track relevant metrics to allow for automated fixes and manual intervention so users aren’t the ones having to remind you your software is broken.
Every piece of software has a user - a person, an organization, other code - and software that doesn’t make the user’s life easier increases the chance they’ll stop using it.
Or worse, start using it incorrectly!
I am curious though what you would describe as your personal philosophy, or if you’re not talking about yourself then what ethics framework are you referring to living inside that does not have a normative component.
Maybe a better way to ask it is: what relativistic philosophy is dominant enough or otherwise adopted to such an extent that people are able to functionally live underneath it without any type of a-priori responsibility to others.
What I DO see however are people who reject responsibility for others, yet accept or even demand support from others - even if it’s tacit - and then hold a position like you describe.
So I remain suspect of anyone promoting some extreme version of individualism, as it conflicts with not only biology, but the entire history of societies and philosophies.
This is the most dangerous line of thinking and one of the many reasons people are tiring of woke-ism. Most reasonable people agree accommodations for the disabled are both smart from a business perspective, and kind to patrons in general. To reframe having objections to this as a "demoralization" and "rejection" that needs "special training" to understand seems more like the schizophrenic sociologists are off their meds again.
Importantly, I have no duty to anyone except my family. I am not obligated by anyone to do anything for you. This is not to be interpreted as me not having empathy for the disabled. But it is not my obligation to do anything about it. I have worked specifically in this industry helping the visually impaired navigate websites better. However, I cannot afford to do such a design for my own personal sites. These types of prescriptive ultimatums are exhausting and when they're codified into law they have an unintended chilling effect.
If that were true, then given the evidence presented in the post and in this thread, the corollary would be that a significant amount of large businesses are run by unreasonable people.