Comment by scottlamb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by scottlamb | Hacker News Reader

The author is seeing that it's easier for one team to get backing (VC money, course credit, design awards, TED talk applause, etc.) for "solving" an accessibility problem than for us to enforce that entire industries follow good accessibility practices in new work and retrofit existing work. In theory industry-wide enforcement is the sort of thing legislation like the ADA solves, but obviously that hasn't been completely effective. Not sure how to fix it.

There was a subthread recently complaining about password managers and their UX problems. These aren't aimed specifically at "disabled" users, but I think it's a similar situation. We can't reliably enforce good standards for sign-in (whether that's just setting the autofill attribute correctly and choosing the correct event handlers for Javascript validators or something far more ambitious), so we expect a password manager to just deal with the web as it is. IMHO they work remarkably well given that constraint, but it's not optimal overall.

Yeah, it kinda feels like a banal thing to hate on. "They're only doing this because it's easier to create a prototype invention than to redo all design standards and enforcement in the country!" I mean, yeah? What exactly is the implied alternative for the sort of individuals targeted by the blog post?

The expressed (not implied) alternative in the post is for those people to stop pretending they care, and start actually caring. Stop trying to save the world. The world doesn't need an invention to save it. Just put that energy into caring about others.

People do care, but there are so many problems in the world, and only so much caring to go around.

It's extremely cynical to view it as "people pretend to care", rather than looking around and realizing there's a ton of important problems out there that the caring is distributed over. People care about disabilities, but they also care about war, about public schooling, about the environment, about feminism, about animal rights, about transparency in government, about road safety, about child well-being, about unemployment, and so on. All of these are important things, and of course there are dozens more that I haven't listed.

And inventions are sometimes actually useful. Sure, most of those prototypes will go nowhere, but every once in a while something that really helps is invented. And you can't predict in advance only the ones that will actually go on to help.

Some people actually care, but they can't always win the battle at their own companies when there are other priorities, much less go fix all the other websites, pour concrete at other businesses, etc. Is the solution for everyone to care? If, so how do you accomplish that? ("Americans with Disability Act" v2?)

Holy smokes, that comes across as "We just want all people to be impoverished equally".

The world doesn't need an invention to save it. Just put that energy into caring about others.

This is an excellent summary of the sort of anti-tech thinking that I strongly disagree with. Caring about people with Alzheimer's is well and good, but what we actually want are vaccines and cures.

The dream of a vaccine or cure is all well and good, but when my grandfather has Alzheimer's today and there's no properly functioning social supports, processes, etc to get him into a home and it takes months and months of phone calls and panicked searches when he wanders off to improve the situation at all, I think maybe there really is a dearth of "caring about the problem and not just the solution"

The video of the prototype invention has the effect of making people think they don't need to be concerned about ramps and doorknobs and ADA enforcement because some teen in a garage has just solved this problem forever. People who need accommodations also require the political support of able-bodied people in order to actually make change happen, and his argument is that these videos dissipate that support.

> his argument is that these videos dissipate that support.

That seems like a major stretch. Really feels like letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here, like saying that a video about improved airbags means that nobody will care about safer road design anymore.

If it weren't for all the supermassive cars rolling around, purchased because they're ostensibly safer in a crash for the person driving them (while markedly decreasing the safety of the other driver) then maybe I could agree with you. But with so many people intentionally electing to value their individual safety at cost of the safety of others, I actually think that it makes for a great reason for them to not think about road safety! Who cares if the road is unsafe if I'm driving a tank?

> because some teen in a garage has just solved this problem forever

Isn't really teens in garages perpetuating this is it though, its universities and companies milking government funding.

There's a general problem on the web (and to a lesser extent computing in general) that UX is just widely terrible. I think part of this is because developers tend to work at the very edge of their competence, and getting something working at all is a major feat, with no room left over for making it work well. And part of it is developers or designers deciding they know better than everyone else. A lot of this was a solved problem back in the 80s: the platform provides a standard UI toolkit and a set of standard idioms, and all software uses them. But this lesson is ignored because developers and designers don't like it when their stuff looks and works just like everything else. Making buttons that look like everyone else's buttons means you don't set yourself apart, so we end up with custom buttons that look different and don't work as well. And, of course, are less accessible, because accessibility requires integration into the overall system that doesn't exist with a custom solution.

I was a Mac fiend back in the "beleaguered" days, and standard widgets and idioms were a big deal in that community. There was broad consensus that apps should all look and work the same, as much as that was possible. A button should be a button and a text field should be a text field no matter what program it was in. That all went out the window with the web, for no particularly good reason, and it's infecting non-web platforms at an alarming rate.

100% agree about the UX problems. Most engineers would be happy to fix those issues, but of course, companies always want the new features...because that's what customers want and what drives more $$$.

Sadly, it's true that the % of new sales generated by improving a11y beyond the bare minimum isn't going to be terribly large. That's why it's important to have regulations that mandate decent support, because the monetary incentive that drives corporate behavior just isn't there.

I feel like that hasn't been true for a long time. Companies no longer compete on featuresets. I mean take any tool you've used for 10-15 years, the trend is often less features, not more. And the irony is that its the products from the biggest most well compensated companies in the world falling into this pattern of removing features and making things slower and less usable over time. Compare humble old VLC, no shortage of features, to what google routinely does to their products.

Quality, functionality, standing on its own merits, no longer is the aim of business. It is about capturing the mindshare through propaganda a.k.a. advertising. It is why these shitty companies can continue to exist on the top while serving continually inferior tooling: they've flooded the mindshare such that even if some superior product came about, it would never gain traction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com