Tangent. How is it logical to deprive people from access to a booth just because people in a wheelchair can't access it? That's like banning computer screens because blind people can't see them.
Because when asked nicely to design accessible buildings very little was done, it required legislation that seems counterintuitive at first, however, if you design for all from the outset, then this is a non-issue. The internet needs to learn this too.
Yes but if there's an accessible alternative then where's the issue? In this case the offices had conference rooms that were wheelchair-accessible.
Sure this means able-bodied people had twice as much access to something but hasn't that always been the case? Like, if you can walk, you can take either the stairs or the ramp to get into a building.
I don't think it is a different issue. The object of the exercise is to allow disabled people to participate on an equal footing. A few nominal concessions that aren't sufficient to achieve this does not do that.
I don't think blocked cycle lanes are a good point of comparison as they don't fulfil their intended function when blocked.
Berkeley had a bunch of great online computer science courses that got taken down because some opportunistic ADA lawyer sued them because the free content wasn't "accessible enough" (and the university couldn't justify the enormous expense of making it accessible given that they earned nothing from it).
The ADA was passed in 1990, so it was in place a full 17 years before Berkeley started adding video to the web.
The university strongly agreed with disability accessibility law. They put policies in place to make sure content was accessible. They offered free support to professors to make content accessible, and they required professors to sign documents saying "I have made this accessible". People lied by signing these forms when they had not made the material accessible.
If they hadn't lied, and had made use of the free support when creating content, the material would have been accessible from the beginning, and the university would not have been dumped into the massively unlawful position they were.
This wasn't some "opportunistic ADA lawyer", it was the inevitable result when hundreds of employees lied about accessibility.
Here's the list of statements that people said they'd done that they mostly had not done:
1.I have reviewed and implemented edX’s “ Guidelines for Creating Accessible Content.”
2.All PDFs attached to my course follow the University of California Office of the President recommendations.
3.I have reviewed and implemented applicable guidelines into my course from the Web Accessibility team’s resource “Top 10 Tips for Making your Website Accessible.”
4.All mp3 and mp4 files in my course have been submitted for transcripts for SubRip Text (SRT) files.
5.All video and audio in my course have accurate captioning available to users through the edX HTML5 player
What's the point of removing content because its not accessible to some small fraction of the population? Is this meant to punish the professors who signed something they likely didn't fully read? It seems that it's punishing individuals who would find this information useful.
What's the point of a law that can just be ignored with no consequences?
> who signed something they likely didn't fully read?
I'm always surprised when I hear this. Signing a document to say you've complied with the law when you haven't complied with the law is a pretty big deal. Maybe I'm missing some context, but you should read the things you're signing.
If I was reading Medium as part of my employment then yes, I would have read the ToS.
If you're saying that Berkeley was paying lip-service to accessibility by having boiler-plate that faculty didn't really need to comply with, well, that makes the situation worse, not better.
"We tried but we didn't account for human factors so we failed" is much better than "we didn't really try, we just pretended, because we wanted to give a good impression without actually making any changes".
Fair enough, I do read every license for any code I use at work.
However, I would certainly think that "we wanted to give a good impression without actually making any changes" is probably closer to the truth. I doubt Berkeley as an institution really cares about accessibility; it sounded like a good thing and policies were enacted without a lot of thought given to the ramifications. If multiple professors signed off that their courses were accessible, then it certainly strikes me that this was a low priority that was largely ignored.
Well "logical" just leads us down a weird path here. Is it "logical" to hire disabled employees at all? It's a lot of work to make your office accessible, so the "logical" answer would be to only hire able bodied people.
Thankfully the world doesn't actually work that way. We make buildings accessible because it's the right thing to do, and because society has decided that excluding people (who are already greatly disadvantaged) is wrong.
Rules like ADA aren't designed to make the most logical sense, they're designed to work. If you don't mandate the shutdown of the inaccessible booths then the company has very little incentive to fix the problem.
> We make buildings accessible because it's the right thing to do, and because society has decided that excluding people (who are already greatly disadvantaged) is wrong.
Is it the right solution though? Does it make sense to spend 1% of GDP on something that helps 0.5% of the population (I'm making up numbers here)? Is this really the most cost effective solution? Wouldn't it make more sense to e.g. give disabled people a Basic Income (social support) enabling them to not work, instead of forcing every employer to spend time and money on making the workplace accessible (even though 99% of that effort will be wasted)? It might be cheaper to hire 2 musclemen to carry a disabled person around, rather than renovating each historic building to add ramps and/or elevators... Yeah, I agree that there are non-monetary effects as well (people socialising and/or feeling useful) but there's probably decent solutions for those as well...
Does it make sense to spend 1% of GDP on something that helps 0.5% of the population (I'm making up numbers here)?
Some not made up numbers for you:
Roughly 15-20% of people self-identify as handicapped. At least one study suggests that up to 60% of the population has some degree of impairment and would benefit from more accessible design in the world generally.
This fits with my observations. Most people who are only mildly impaired actively distance themselves from the label as it is stigmatizing. People only embrace the label of being handicapped or disabled if they need so much accommodation that it is worthwhile to put up with the bullshit that goes along with having a stigmatizing label.
More than that, we all become disabled. It's just a matter of time. And some are more aware of that than others, based on the comments I see in this thread :-)
The lead of UX at my company likes to say that everyone becomes disabled temporarily once in a while. You ever want to watch a video in public but forgot your headphones? Ever lose your glasses and have to go a few days before your replacements come in? Ever try to open a door while also pulling a cart with heavy items?
Accessible design ends up helping anyone who isn't at optimal ability at that very moment.
> In the United States, 60% (101.4 million) of working-age adults who range from 18 to 64 years old are likely or very likely to benefit from the use of accessible technology due to difficulties and impairments that may impact computer use.
I'm all for "more accessible design" as it also correlates with "easier to use", but otherwise I think you're making my point for me. Do your family members with dysgraphia (difficulty writing) benefit from ramps, larger phone booths and hearing-impaired accessibility features?
Lots of people benefit from ramps. For example, people pushing a baby stroller. People who walk with a cane. People who walk with a permanent limp but don't yet need a cane (like me).
Public phones are going the way of the dinosaur. Most folks have a smartphone these days. I feel like that's largely irrelevant.
Hearing impaired accessibility features in, for example, computer-based games came in very handy when we were homeless and spending our entire day at a library where you needed to either keep the sound off or wear headphones. None of us can wear headphones due to health issues that promote ear infections, so we just kept the sound off all day and relied on the visual cues intended for deaf or hearing-impaired people.
What if those disabled people want to work, though? Why should their opportunities be limited to basic income when you and I do not have the same limitations? Would you not find being carried around by two musclemen to be humiliating? Are these musclemen accompanying you to the toilet?
As you admit you're making up numbers... is there any evidence that these costs are killing businesses? Snap could most certainly afford to do it without thinking twice about it.
Let's say the place had no toilets, so they build some and you go in and it's just stand up men's urinals.
So you politely point out this won't work for you, they're breaking the law and frankly, making you feel very excluded, and they're like:
"Meh, women. We'll get around to it. But yeah we'll put some signs up in the meantime. You can use the ones in the building down the street. Thanks for pointing that out..."
It's not just about the design competence or legal compliance, it's the principle.
I purposely didn't put that in - I was trying to convey the righteous outrage that would be felt.
The point is you think about this up front.
The reason you would require the functioning facility to be closed is to make it clear to the business and all others there are consequences for this incompetence and lack of care.
I've no idea how you get to burning the whole building down, my rationale for conveying the importance of respecting standards, legislation and plain human decency was pretty clear I think.
The rationale I see here is that 'disrespecting' standards means we should cut off the nose to spite the face.
Why didn't you decide the building should be burned down, rather than just closing the offending restrooms? Or if not burned, closed temporarily? Or, per your example, what is the difference if they leave the restroom open but specifically disable the urinals, letting people use the sinks to wash their hands?
Where exactly is the line that you draw on what should be sabotaged to rectify the injustice? Is it just do whatever the legislation says? Does following "legislation" always equate to "plain human decency" and does that rule apply 100% of the time in the past, present, and future?
Please, just consider what I actually said, these excessive scorched earth situations are kind of bizarre.
The reason you would require the functioning facility to be closed is to make it clear to the business and all others there are consequences for this incompetence and lack of care.
Sure, I still think the consequence qualifies as cutting the nose to spite the face.
Although I don't get why you think you're entitled to come up with a hypothetical scenario but balk at entertaining any questions clarifying it or related hypotheticals. But anyway, agree to disagree.
In contrast to opinions of employers or employees, laws are the result of the democratic process. The process itself might lead to imperfect results due to populist election campaigns, lobbying parties, and lawmakers funding the next golf party by making the actual legal text a bit complicated, but it's the closest approximation of general consensus we currently have.
That being said, once it's law you have one thing to do and two options:
- you have to follow the law
Besides that, you should embrace what your fellow humans might have thought when bringing in this legislation, enabling you to either:
- Help you understand and embrace it
- Vote differently in the next election (or, sadly but truly bring in your net worth to lobby towards your opinion to greater effect)
Well now no one has those tools, so from a business perspective (even without going into how many people with disabilities are in the workforce) having part of the workforce with more access to a tool is better.
This also seemed weird to me. From the tone of the article I was expecting that they never even replaced the phone booths or something like that. But it sounds like they were replaced within a month, which seems fairly prompt considering they weren't essential items
I'm making a website that gives free kittens and Bitcoins to anyone who has a HN username starting with a letter in the second half of the alphabet. You can't use it, which is a shame, but it would be wrong to deprive half of HN free kittens and Bitcoins, right? I mean, fairness is all well and good, but everyone likes a free kitten. I'm really sorry I can't make a website that everyone can access, but that would cost more so I'm not going to bother.
Your posts discriminate against everyone who can't read English. Unreasonable discrimination is the problem.
EDIT: granted, writing posts in English isn't arbitrary, but neither is installing small booths, there are good space-utilization benefits to it; it's unreasonable, because those benefits don't trump accessibility to people in wheelchairs.
Why would it be a shame? Life has always been unfair. Even if you were to make an accessible version of the website, people with no internet access wouldn't be able to access it so how is that fair? You can't really enforce "fairness" because it's subjective.
In this particular case however, the office had wheelchair-accessible rooms so I don't see why the booths had to be accessible as well when they serve the same purpose as the rooms.
