[nfbcs] Ethics of screen reader friendly development

[Nancy Coffman]

We also should remember that accessibility features make for better usability. Many people who are not blind or do not have other disabilities also benefit from the accessibility features we need. Software that works well benefits everybody.

Nancy Coffman
Sent from my iPhone

On May 20, 2013, at 8:36 PM, "Gary Wunder" <gwunder at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Wow, what a thought-provoking post. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Jude DaShiell
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:14 PM
> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Ethics of screen reader friendly development
> 
> Everyone needs to remember accessibility has always had two get out of jail
> free cards available to those targeted for compliance.  First card is
> unreasonable burden which must be and has been proved in the past.  
> The second get out of jail free card is for a compliance target to be able
> to exceed the accessibility standards in question because they have a better
> way of providing accessibility than has been done so far available.  That
> takes care of both ends of that bell curve, and what's left over to argue
> about is the stuff in the middle.  The argument I hear advanced in here
> against accessibility could equally be used against security since
> substantial amounts of time effort and money have to be spent for that and
> prevent work on the next killer features.  The problem at least for the
> screen reader community is even if every baby who would be born blind or
> become blind at some time in their lives could be detected and aborted in
> time the blind population would still not diminish.  Countries will do war
> regularly and one of the by-products are blinded veterans who need jobs when
> returning home.  
> Aside from wars, industrial accidents will happen and people have accidents
> with shotguns on turkey hunts.  Young kids will take the powder out of caps
> with a needle and let it fall into a jar on a table outside until the sun
> throws a spark into the jar igniting the powder and causing loss of
> eyesight.  All of them are going to need jobs.  Now, it will be possible if
> accessible development gets shut off to steer blind people completely away
> from the computer field along with all other disabled people requiring
> accessibility in order to save the money that would be spent on
> accessibility for killer features.  Aside from the problem what kind of jobs
> will this class of people have, there is no guarrantee that corporations
> will even consider developing those killer features and more likely plough
> that money back into higher stock dividends for their investors.  With the
> mergers and acquisitions climate as it is now, the big fish eat well and the
> people lower down on the pay scales have their jobs at the most jeopardy
> when m&a activity happens.  Everything here is connected and moving one
> piece sets off chain reactions that spread decisions taken throughout the