Hacker News Reader

Comment by TulliusCicero | Hacker News Reader

It's a really cynical way to attack people who are at least sort of trying to help.

And obviously the inventions of "a ramp" and "slightly wider door" already exist; those aren't a matter of invention, they're a matter of regulations and enforcement.

View on HN

And sometimes seriously non-trivial.

When there is a substantial elevation difference you need a lot of ramp--which needs a lot of space.

We already are seeing the problem with road construction--cities avoiding doing work that would require bringing the sidewalks up to current standards. I don't know what the issue is but those curb cuts for wheelchairs are labor intensive.

Trying to help does not give you a free pass. Pushing a wheelchair user up a ramp without asking their permission first is both "trying to help" and inconsiderate (and scary and dangerous).

Before inventing a more advanced stair climbing wheelchair, you should ask a few wheelchair users if stairs are really the issue they need solving.

THIS.

I've seen visually impaired and wheelchair users have more issues with elevators than I have with not having proper ramps.

Although I have seen several wheelchair bound accessibility experts invited to give talks and there's no ramp or accessible way for them to access the stage where they're giving a talk about. . . . . accessibility.

That's a pretty ridiculous analogy. Simply inventing something doesn't force the invention onto anyone.

The articles premise seems to say clearly "you arent helping". The thought counts, yes, but in ignoring feedback it becomes arrogance.

Contributing to a net loss of funding and attention, all while making the public more ignorant and more passive, results in material harms to the population they claim to serve.

This kind of self-aggrandizement at other's expense deserves to be recognized as it is and should be met with an equal measure of contempt.

Really letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. No, we can't let people attempt new inventions, some of which may actually help, because the mere fact that people will see them may result in less attention for more basic, important stuff.

Is there solid evidence that TED talks about stair-climbing wheelchairs undermine actual regulations and investments in ramps, or is this more of a "my source is that I made it up" kind of situation?

You replied "Letting perfect be the enemy of good" several times in the comments here. I think the sentence works against the arguments you're making:

Perfect is the promise of a climb-everywhere-wheelchair. It's hypothetical, dreamed up, and causing people to forego the immediate and good solution (ramps).

You are also making the assumption that the hypothetical climb-everywhere-wheelchair is better than a ramp.

The ramp is easier to make safe, and so we need to ask about safety if it works most of the time. This also gets into maintenance, the robot with moving parts is expected to have more parts to break.

The ramp's batteries will never go dead (or if they do it doesn't matter since they are only for lights anyway?).

There's a consistent pattern of people 'solving' a minority population's 'problems' without ever looking at what problems they actually have.

I have 'solid evidence' from my time in industry where heedlessly pursuing 'innovation' got companies (including my own) sued back into compliance with the ADA. Along with deserved lost contracts and managerial beheadings.

Higher profile examples of TED talk 'innovation' killing 'the good' would be the proposed CA 'hyperloop' talk, white paper, and project scuttling high-speed rail investment for another decade plus.

What are your bona fides now that you've brought up your familiarity with both perfection and good?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com