We can't correct the spelling errors

[Snooder]

@dhromed said:

@Snooder said:

it's just indefensible to force someone who is neither a child nor disabled to have to deal with those same deficiencies.

 

Exactly!

And nobody said that.

It's the logical implication of the following statement by blakeyrat.

Of course; that's basic accessibility. Just because a person can't use a keyboard, doesn't mean they should be excluded from the world of software development.

That in order to include people in software development, we ought to use tools that are designed in such a way that the disabled can use them. Which has the logical consequence, as several people keep pointing out, that those same tools will need to be used by everyone. And thus, people who aren't disabled will have to suffer through the irritations and deficiencies inherent in the designs made for the disabled.

It's the difference between saying "hey, it would be nice if this existing, useful tool had an optional plugin that allowed for someone to code without a keyboard, even if keyboard-less code will be crippled and shitty" and "we ought to design every tool around being used without a keyboard, therefore making everyone's code crippled and shitty."

 

[dhromed]

@Snooder said:

Which has the logical consequence, as several people keep pointing out, that those same tools will need to be used by everyone.

 

No, those same tools will not have to be used by everyone.

[error]

@Snooder said:

will be crippled and shitty

I see what you did there.

[blakeyrat]

@Snooder said:

It's the logical implication of the following statement by blakeyrat.

I don't imply.

@Snooder said:

That in order to include people in software development, we ought to use tools that are designed in such a way that the disabled can use them. Which has the logical consequence, as several people keep pointing out, that those same tools will need to be used by everyone. And thus, people who aren't disabled will have to suffer through the irritations and deficiencies inherent in the designs made for the disabled.

.net and Java already have the ability to write code in multiple languages for a single project.

[eViLegion]

@blakeyrat said:

I don't imply.

Maybe not, but the shit you type does.

[Sutherlands]

@Snooder said:

Of course; that's basic accessibility. Just because a person can't use a keyboard, doesn't mean they should be excluded from the world of software development.

That in order to include people in software development, we ought to use tools that are designed in such a way that the disabled can use them. Which has the logical consequence, as several people keep pointing out, that those same tools will need to be used by everyone. And thus, people who aren't disabled will have to suffer through the irritations and deficiencies inherent in the designs made for the disabled.

It's the difference between saying "hey, it would be nice if this existing, useful tool had an optional plugin that allowed for someone to code without a keyboard, even if keyboard-less code will be crippled and shitty" and "we ought to design every tool around being used without a keyboard, therefore making everyone's code crippled and shitty."

Have you ever heard of an on-screen keyboard?

[Snooder]

@blakeyrat said:

.net and Java already have the ability to write code in multiple languages for a single project.

And? At some point, someone will still need to review that code. Or make changes to it.

Look, right now I'm working with a really shitty proprietary language that comes with it's own WYSIWYG editor. The basic idea behind this mild abortion was originally that it would be simple enough for non-programmers to use; you can build the rules just by clicking on a diagram, and select variables and expressions from a dropdown list with suggestions thats generated as you type.

It's ass. Sure, most of the time it works and it's pretty easy to add a new rule. But if you want to do anything that the GUI designers didn't think of, then it all goes to pot. Worse, because of the way the graphical models are set up, it's much, much harder to actually figure out what the logic is doing than it would be with a regular language with functions and procedures.

And I don't even normally code in this thing. I write Java code. But because the bulk of our backend database management stuff is done in this thing, I have to learn to debug it. I wouldn't wish this pain on anyone else.

[blakeyrat]

@Snooder said:

And? At some point, someone will still need to review that code. Or make changes to it.

Ok? Are you building to some kind of point here?

@Snooder said:

Look, right now I'm working with a really shitty proprietary language that comes with it's own WYSIWYG editor.

Nope, you're going in some other direction altogether.

@Snooder said:

The basic idea behind this mild abortion was originally that it would be simple enough for non-programmers to use; you can build the rules just by clicking on a diagram, and select variables and expressions from a dropdown list with suggestions thats generated as you type.

It's ass. Sure, most of the time it works and it's pretty easy to add a new rule. But if you want to do anything that the GUI designers didn't think of, then it all goes to pot. Worse, because of the way the graphical models are set up, it's much, much harder to actually figure out what the logic is doing than it would be with a regular language with functions and procedures.

And I don't even normally code in this thing. I write Java code. But because the bulk of our backend database management stuff is done in this thing, I have to learn to debug it. I wouldn't wish this pain on anyone else.

What's your point here exactly? Poorly-written software is bad? Because: duh. We already knew that.

If you don't have anything relevant to say on the topic, why bother posting?

[eViLegion]

@blakeyrat said:

If you don't have anything relevant to say on the topic, why bother posting?

This has never stopped you.

[Arnavion]

@blakeyrat said:

.net and Java already have the ability to write code in multiple languages for a single project.

So does this mean certain parts of the codebase are to be disabled-friendly, as they will be written in $DisabledFriendlyLanguage, while the rest of the project is in some $LanguageTheProjectUses that isn't? This would mean that:

• Everyone else who has to fix a bug in that part of the code has to learn $DisabledFriendlyLanguage (not a bad requirement)
• The disabled programmers can never contribute to parts of the codebase that aren't in $DisabledFriendlyLanguage, which is not as bad as the initial situation ("Disabled programmers can't contribute at all") but still a minor segregation.

@dhromed said:

No, those same tools will not have to be used by everyone.

Are you two talking about some kind of transpiler that will convert $DisabledFriendlyLanguage into $LanguageTheProjectUses ?

[blakeyrat]

@Arnavion said:

Are you two talking about some kind of transpiler that will convert $DisabledFriendlyLanguage into $LanguageTheProjectUses ?

Sure why not.

I'm talking about accessibility. Technology should be accessible to everybody. I'm not giving particular suggestions as to how exactly it should work or what form it should take; my main concern is to get the assholes around here to be aware of it.

[eViLegion]

What if it is determined that you'll need to put 100% more effort in to release a product or service to cover a potential additional disabled market of 1%?



Is it the correct decision to go ahead and make it accessible?



Is any business owner who decides not to do that an asshole?

[Sutherlands]

@eViLegion said:

What if it is determined that you'll need to put 100% more effort in to release a product or service to cover a potential additional disabled market of 1%?



Is it the correct decision to go ahead and make it accessible?



Is any business owner who decides not to do that an asshole?

No.  Luckily that is not the case for all the features that windows has for accessibility.  You just have to actually think about it.

[blakeyrat]

@eViLegion said:

What if it is determined that you'll need to put 100% more effort in to release a product or service to cover a potential additional disabled market of 1%?

It's not even remotely close to 100% more effort if you start thinking about it early in the process and design with it in mind. The real problem is assholes don't do that; they make something that "works for me" and call it finished. (Maybe we should call this this Git Development Philosophy.)

@eViLegion said:

Is it the correct decision to go ahead and make it accessible?

Yes.

@eViLegion said:

Is any business owner who decides not to do that an asshole?

Yes. It's also quite possible they're breaking the law.

[eViLegion]

Oh, for sure I just selected some numbers that would illustrate my point more generously, and the reality is not quite as cut and dry as I suggested. But the point remains that some tech takes more accessibility work than other tech... And different size audiences are relevant.

Making government websites work for the partially sighted is worthwhile. Making Wii nunchucks for quadriplegics, not so much.

[dkf]

@blakeyrat said:

@dkf said:

@blakeyrat said:

quickly, accurately,

You're expecting to get both of those at the same time? Really?

Sure why not?

Note I said "accurately" not "UTTERLY COMPLETELY IN A PEDANTIC DICKWEED FASHION I MUST KNOW EVERY TINY MICROSCOPIC DETAIL OF THIS DATABASE DESIGN FEED IT TO ME SEYMOUR FEED ME!"

Well, accuracy comes with the text version, whereas the graphical view is more suited to a quick overview.

The squiggles joining the tables aren't the clearest way of representing the inter-table relations IMO, unless you've actually got a snapshot of an active diagram where hovering over one of those squiggles gives more info. Active diagrams can represent very complex information succinctly, but they're very much not the same thing as static snapshots of those diagrams. Oh, and active diagrams aren't cheap to produce (unless someone's already amortized the cost of the tooling to do so into something you've already bought, of course).

Personally, I'd still go with the text version. Linguistic solutions remain remarkably easy to deal with, and scale up better than pictoral solutions. (I've been working with graphical programming languages for many years; I greatly prefer textual ones for anything even slightly complicated.)

 

[Snooder]

@blakeyrat said:

What's your point here exactly? Poorly-written software is bad? Because: duh. We already knew that.

No, my point is:
(A) having to debug stuff from this WYSIYG language is bad.
(B) Even though I write code in a normal language (Java), since part of the project is done in that language, I have to debug it. And I have to do it using their shit tools.


So unless you had a translator to go from $ShittyCrippledLanguage to $NormalLanguage, the guys writing in the normal language will have to go muck around in the $ShittyCrippledLanguage using the ShittyCrippledLanguage tools. And even if you DID have a translator, you'd still end up with weird crap autogenerated by the ShittyCrippledLanguage.

Note, I'm not saying that this hypothetical language is shitty and crippled because the disabled use it. There's nothing at all wrong with disabled people. I'm saying it's shitty and crippled because it sacrifices what should be the primary function of software development tools for a nebulous and unnecessary goal of accessibility. By definition, handicapping a tool for a non-useful purpose is crippling it.

 

[error]

Maybe you should choose your words more carefully. Calling a tool crippled and handicapped that is designed to be used by crippled and handicapped disabled persons is just a little insensitive.

[eViLegion]

@blakeyrat said:

Yes.

So, you think Nintendo should have made their Wii controllers usable by quadriplegics then?


Should Apples retina displays be usable to completely blind people.


Should Microsoft make .NET programming easy enough to be done by people like yourself the severely mentally retarded?


How much effort should they have expended doing this... enough to put them completely out of business?

@blakeyrat said:

It's also quite possible they're breaking the law.

Well, that's another issue entirely. But since pretty much everyone in the world disagrees with at least one law, what the fuck has it got to do with anything?



Regardless of the law, if it costs to much for a business to do it, they won't do it.



My personal view is that disability organisations that sue companies over accessibility issues are shooting themselves in the foot, by generating bad feeling among reasonable able bodied people, which is only likely to lead to more discrimination.

[dkf]

@joe.edwards said:

Maybe you should choose your words more carefully. Calling a tool crippled and handicapped that is designed to be used by crippled and handicapped disabled persons is just a little insensitive.

And for quite a number of disabled people, a proper textual programming language is actually easier to work with than something cut down. After all, much more effort has been put into making text accessible to the blind than any graphical programming language is ever likely to receive...

[blakeyrat]

@Snooder said:

Note, I'm not saying that this hypothetical language is shitty and crippled because the disabled use it.

You're saying: because this one WYSIWYG programming language isn't very good, therefore the entire concept of WYSIWYG programming languages isn't very good.

I don't see how B follows from A. And you've certainly not demonstrated it.

And in any case, I'm not even talking about a WYSIWYG programming language being the end-all be-all solution to accessibility in programming. You inserted that little gem. I'm just saying what programming ought to be accessible to everybody, regardless of their physical abilities.

[eViLegion]

@blakeyrat said:

I'm just saying what programming ought to be accessible to everybody, regardless of their physical abilities.

Which is not possible.

[blakeyrat]

@eViLegion said:

So, you think Nintendo should have made their Wii controllers usable by quadriplegics then?

Not necessarily. They should provide alternate controls that quadriplegics can use.

@eViLegion said:

Should Apples retina displays be usable to completely blind people.

Now you're just being stupid.

@eViLegion said:

Should Microsoft make .NET programming easy enough to be done by people like yourself the severely mentally retarded?

They should make an effort, yes. And Microsoft does have projects like Kodu, which are great strides in the right direction.

@eViLegion said:

Well, that's another issue entirely. But since pretty much everyone in the world disagrees with at least one law, what the fuck has it got to do with anything?

I don't know what kind of hellhole you live in, but here in the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act is pretty fucking important.

@eViLegion said:

Regardless of the law, if it costs to much for a business to do it, they won't do it.

Perhaps; but they still should do it.

[blakeyrat]

@eViLegion said:

Which is not possible.

Not with today's shitty tools, or with today's shitty developer community that refuses to move on from the 1970s.

But it is possible.

[Guest]

Speech recognition sounds awkward, but with programming languages being (in general) pretty redundant and having a limited set of characters, I think something similar to Dasher would work pretty well.

[error]

@anonymous234 said:

Speech recognition sounds awkward, but with programming languages being (in general) pretty redundant and having a limited set of characters, I think something similar to Dasher would work pretty well.

Can tools for disabled users cause you to become disabled? I think that GIF broke my brain.

[Lorne Kates]

@eViLegion said:

So, you think Nintendo should have made their Wii controllers usable by quadriplegics then?

 

Why not?  There are Guitar Hero controllers for [url="http://eelke.com/blindhero-guitarhero-visual-impairment.html"]blind people[/url], and also for other [url="http://www.prlog.org/10946025-guitar-hero-adapted-for-people-with-disabilities.html"]disabilities[/url].  Why not make an eye-tracker-and-blink controller? It's a market.

[eViLegion]

@blakeyrat said:

@eViLegion said:

So, you think Nintendo should have made their Wii controllers usable by quadriplegics then?

Not necessarily. They should provide alternate controls that quadriplegics can use.

I don't think we need to further this element of the discussion now... your response is just too amusing.

@blakeyrat said:

@eViLegion said:

Should Apples retina displays be usable to completely blind people.

Now you're just being stupid.

A better word would be facetious... because the answer is, of course not, it cannot be done.

@blakeyrat said:

@eViLegion said:

Should Microsoft make .NET programming easy enough to be done by people like yourself the severely mentally retarded?

They should make an effort, yes. And Microsoft does have projects like Kodu, which are great strides in the right direction.

That's for children, not the severely mentally retarded. I mean, for example, people who can basically do nothing, owing to some developmental condition.

@blakeyrat said:

@eViLegion said:

Well, that's another issue entirely. But since pretty much everyone in the world disagrees with at least one law, what the fuck has it got to do with anything?

I don't know what kind of hellhole you live in, but here in the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act is pretty fucking important.

In the UK, we pretty much have the same legislation. No-one gives a fuck. The RNIB is trying to sue BMI Baby over their website. Only the blind give a shit. Amusingly, the RNIB website has some notice about their phone lines being down... I briefly considered trolling them about their accessibility issues. Anyway, is it really that important to most Americans? Really. I mean, hands up if you really give that much of a fuck? I'm prepared to be surprised if loads of you do actually care that much.

@blakeyrat said:

@eViLegion said:

Regardless of the law, if it costs to much for a business to do it, they won't do it.

Perhaps; but they still should do it.

They should put themselves out of business, so that some [b]hypothetical[/b] disabled person has the option of not becoming a customer? Nice.

[error]

@eViLegion said:

Anyway, is it really that important to most Americans? Really. I mean, hands up if you really give that much of a fuck? I'm prepared to be surprised if loads of you do actually care that much.

I care insofar as it creates a potential for legal liability and a possibility of punitive measures to be taken against me or my employer.

[eViLegion]

@Lorne Kates said:

@eViLegion said:

So, you think Nintendo should have made their Wii controllers usable by quadriplegics then?

 

Why not?  There are Guitar Hero controllers for blind people, and also for other disabilities.  Why not make an eye-tracker-and-blink controller? It's a market.

I'd actually pay money to see a game of Wii tennis played this way.

[eViLegion]

@joe.edwards said:

@eViLegion said:

Anyway, is it really that important to most Americans? Really. I mean, hands up if you really give that much of a fuck? I'm prepared to be surprised if loads of you do actually care that much.

I care insofar as it creates a potential for legal liability and a possibility of punitive measures to be taken against me or my employer.

Which is pretty damned reasonable... but it's not really caring about disabled accessibility, and more about maintaining a comfortable condition for one's own arse.

[Arnavion]

@eViLegion said:

Stuff.

So are you as much of an asshole as you're being here in real life, or it just an anonymous-cannon-loose-on-the-internet thing?

[Cassidy]

@eViLegion said:

@blakeyrat said:

@eViLegion said:

So, you think Nintendo should have made their Wii controllers usable by quadriplegics then?

Not necessarily. They should provide alternate controls that quadriplegics can use.

I don't think we need to further this element of the discussion now... your response is just too amusing.

I'm sure Stephen Hawking saw the funny side when they said "it couldn't be done".

[blakeyrat]

@eViLegion said:

I mean, for example, people who can basically do nothing, owing to some developmental condition.

People who can "basically do nothing" can "basically do nothing". By definition. I don't get what you're looking for here. In case you're seriously asking: no Microsoft does not have any technologies in development that magically make severely disabled people functional.

But wouldn't it be great if they did?

@eViLegion said:

In the UK, we pretty much have the same legislation. No-one gives a fuck.

Are you projecting, or is your country full of assholes? I'll go with the former.

@eViLegion said:

Anyway, is it really that important to most Americans? Really. I mean, hands up if you really give that much of a fuck? I'm prepared to be surprised if loads of you do actually care that much.

Lack of awareness is our opponent. The problem is that people don't think about it until it's too late. It's not lack of caring.

Do Americans give a fuck if things are accessible? You bet your ass we do.

@eViLegion said:

They should put themselves out of business, so that some hypothetical disabled person has the option of not becoming a customer? Nice.

You're replying to shoulder aliens. I never said anything about companies putting themselves out of business; that came from you.

[error]

@blakeyrat said:

@eViLegion said:

I mean, for example, people who can basically do nothing, owing to some developmental condition.

People who can "basically do nothing" can "basically do nothing". By definition. I don't get what you're looking for here. In case you're seriously asking: no Microsoft does not have any technologies in development that magically make severely disabled people functional.

There need to be systems that plug straight into your brainstem like in The Matrix.

[HardwareGeek]

@eViLegion said:

@blakeyrat said:

@eViLegion said:

Regardless of the law, if it costs to much for a business to do it, they won't do it.

Perhaps; but they still should do it.

They should put themselves out of business, so that some hypothetical disabled person has the option of not becoming a customer? Nice.

Business managers also have a fiduciary duty to the business owners/shareholders to use the company resources "prudently." Although there may be some exceptions, like avoiding legal liability or increasing "goodwill" (which can be given a monetary value and included in financial calculations), if making a product more accessible would cost more than the additional revenue the accessibility would generate, then making the product more accessible would not be "prudent," and a manager who chose to do so should be sanctioned by his/her employer. Of course, if the owner(s) approve, that's another matter; it's his/her/their money to spend.

[Snooder]

@blakeyrat said:

@Snooder said:

Note, I'm not saying that this hypothetical language is shitty and crippled because the disabled use it.

You're saying: because this one WYSIWYG programming language isn't very good, therefore the entire concept of WYSIWYG programming languages isn't very good.

I don't see how B follows from A. And you've certainly not demonstrated it.

No, I'm using that one language as a specific example to illustrate a larger point that I made earlier which you are ignoring or refusing to address. The general point being that languages which are designed with the focus of accessibility in mind are, by definition, not designed to foster the more important goals of maintenability, usefulness and efficiency. Yes, it may be possible to have a language that accomplishes both, somehow. I haven't heard of one though, and you don't seem to have any examples of one either. I do have a specific example of a language in the other direction, and there are enough similar examples of other dead-ends in the evolution of software development that anyone espousing a new "this language is totally accessible guys" language is automatically suspect.

Look, there are things that can be done to make programming easier and better. I remember hearing in college about some grad students who were working on a new programming language designed to make parallel computing more intuitive. I haven't heard anything about it since then, but at it the time, it struck me as a great way to get better code out of people who may just not be able to instinctively grasp how to write code that uses multiple threads or multiple processing cores efficiently. But WYSIWYG just isn't one of those things.

And in any case, I'm not even talking about a WYSIWYG programming language being the end-all be-all solution to accessibility in programming. You inserted that little gem. I'm just saying what programming ought to be accessible to everybody, regardless of their physical abilities.

I disagree. Accessibility does not mean better programs, or better code. It may be nice to have as a bonus, but the focus should always be on creating better tools that lets developers create better work. If that means that the tools might require someone with specific talent to utilize it to it's fullest, well that's not a bad thing.

 

[blakeyrat]

@Snooder said:

I disagree. Accessibility does not mean better programs, or better code. It may be nice to have as a bonus, but the focus should always be on creating better tools that lets developers create better work.

Fair opinion, but the IT community doesn't do that either.

@Snooder said:

If that means that the tools might require someone with specific talent to utilize it to it's fullest, well that's not a bad thing.

Your weasel-words "to the fullest" mean this statement is not mutually-exclusive with my opinion.

[mikeTheLiar]

It doesn't happen often, but sometimes I have to agree with blakey. He's even being somewhat reasonable!

[eViLegion]

My primary objection to this sort of legislation is that it forces developers to do work, essentially for free. You can't charge more for accessibility features, since the majority of customers have no need for them, and there is no guarantee that anyone will use them, if no disabled people actually buys the product. Why should developers of a product with a specific target demographic be held hostage over such an issue? It's not discrimination if you're still allowing them to buy and use a product as is, to the best of their ability.

Should every group be taken into account? Lads magazine sites forced to include some girly stuff? Specialists making Christian educational materials forced to make Islamic friendly versions? Every website in every language? All of those could be justified by the same principle

[blakeyrat]

@eViLegion said:

You can't charge more for accessibility features

Sure you can. And as long as the charge isn't outrageous, I have absolutely zero problems with that. The quadriplegic controller for the Wii is going to cost more than the mass-produced wand things (or whatever, I don't own a fucking Wii, too busy playing video games), that's not a big deal and I don't think anybody complains about that situation.

@eViLegion said:

Should every group be taken into account? Lads magazine sites forced to include some girly stuff? Specialists making Christian educational materials forced to make Islamic friendly versions? Every website in every language? All of those could be justified by the same principle

A slippery slope fallacy! I am defeated, sir! Take my lands, servants and property, I will abscond to the colonies in shame! You have bested me!

@eViLegion said:

All of those could be justified by the same principle

No they can't, and you're an idiot. If the "lads magazine" was literally the only magazine on newsstands, then maybe maybe the ADA would apply to it, but that's so hypothetical it's ridiculous to even think about it. I think the reality is you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, what the ADA even legislates, and (perhaps as a result of inferior UK schools) are kind of dim.

[HardwareGeek]

@blakeyrat said:

@eViLegion said:

You can't charge more for accessibility features

Sure you can. And as long as the charge isn't outrageous, I have absolutely zero problems with that. The quadriplegic controller for the Wii is going to cost more than the mass-produced wand things.

Ah, I think Blakey has finally explained his viewpoint in a way that I understand, and that now sounds more-or-less reasonable.

I think some people are misunderstanding your position as advocating that everything should include accessibility features built into the basic product, at higher cost and/or diminished usability for the majority of people who do not need the features. That is almost indefensible, but it seemed to be what you were advocating. If all you really want is an option for an add-on or alternative HID that is accessible, that is much more reasonable, though still not cost-effective in all cases.

Going back to the topic of writing code without using a keyboard, the ADA requires an employer to make "reasonable" accomodations to disabled employees. If, for the sake of debate, we accept the hypothesis C-like syntax is unreasonably hard to dictate to speech-to-text, perhaps some other device like an eye-tracker would be good, or maybe not even a technological solution; if you like the pair-programming concept, this seems like a natural fit for it. However, I would draw the line of "reasonable" short of adding another language to a project just because a disabled programmer finds it too hard to code in the project's main language.

[blakeyrat]

@HardwareGeek said:

I think some people are misunderstanding your position as advocating that everything should include accessibility features built into the basic product, at higher cost and/or diminished usability for the majority of people who do not need the features.

Yeah well on this board if i posted "the sky is blue", the first response would be, "the 1979 Dodgers would never have won the pennant, you dumbass, they didn't have any pitching talent!"

I can only control what I type. I can't control what other people read. And on this forum, the two rarely have any connection to each other.

The real problem I'm talking about here is the people who design these programming languages and tools without giving one iota of thought to accessibility-- and in the case of Java, actually *breaking* the operating system's built-in accessibility features. That's indefensible. This is an industry that, by and large, takes a look at Git and says, "that's a pretty good piece of software!" That's indefensible.

That's what I'm talking about.

[Arnavion]

For the thread in general:

@http://stackoverflow.com/questions/118984/how-can-you-program-if-youre-blind said:

I usually rely on synthetic speech but do have a Braille display. I find I usually work faster with speech but use the Braille display in situations where punctuation matters and gets complicated. Examples of this are if statements with lots of nested parenthesis’s and JCL where punctuation is incredibly important.

Also:
@blakeyrat said:

and in the case of Java, actually breaking the operating system's built-in accessibility features

Do you mean GUI generated using Java toolkits don't use the OS's accessibility features, or the IDEs don't? (I have no experience with the former, but for the latter that link I just gave says Eclipse is excellent at that.)

[eViLegion]

So you spotted one issue with my argument, which you didnt actually address but merely contradicted, yet you conveniently ignore your own repeated ad hominem attacks in everything you have ever typed to anyone on this site? You are an abject cunt aren't you?

Tell me again why we should have reduced freedom to do what we want to do, the way we want to do it. Oh yes, because you say we have to do it your way.... But we can charge more, because you allow it... Thanks!



Again I say... Not going out of your way to help someone else ISN'T discrimination, and it's fucking appalling that reasonable people should be sued by people whose business it is none of, just for going about their days without helping some specific others.

[PJH]

@blakeyrat said:

@Snooder said:

Note, I'm not saying that this hypothetical language is shitty and crippled because the disabled use it.

You're saying: because this one WYSIWYG programming language isn't very good, therefore the entire concept of WYSIWYG programming languages isn't very good.

You're putting words into people's mouths again. Either stop doing that, or stop moaning when you think others are doing that to you.

[dhromed]

@eViLegion said:

My personal view is that disability organisations that sue companies over accessibility issues are shooting themselves in the foot, by generating bad feeling among reasonable able bodied people, which is only likely to lead to more discrimination.

aw you poor thing

babby has bad feeling because angry disabled people

please disabled people go away

please go away!

*crie*

:'(

 

 

[eViLegion]

@dhromed said:

aw you poor thing

babby has bad feeling because angry disabled people

please disabled people go away

please go away!

crie

:'(

 

 

Don't be silly. I've never had to build accessibility bullshit into software in my life. I have no vested interest one way or the other on this issue, and no disabled people have actually offended me.



Anyway you've got it the wrong way round... the disabled folks are the plaintiffs here. They're the ones booing until the entire world accommodates them. Only, they're not saying "please go away", they're saying "come over here and do this stuff for me... no we wont pay you". Is it that unreasonable to say "I'm sorry, but its not actually my problem, and I'm not prepared to help"? Yeah, it might not be particularly compassionate, but it is at least a free choice.



Incidentally, blakey seems to have taken your place at the adults table; I hope you are appropriately ashamed.

[Arnavion]

@eViLegion said:

They're the ones booing until the entire world accommodates them. Only, they're not saying "please go away", they're saying "come over here and do this stuff for me... no we wont pay you".

Yeah man. How dare those blind people not complain about evilLegion's website being unusable on a screen reader. Don't they know that being blind means they're not allowed to access evilLegion's websites, because evilLegion not only isn't "prepared to help" but actively gets annoyed at being told his deficient product is deficient?

[dhromed]

@eViLegion said:

bleh

 

At what point between wheelchair ramps and game controllers for the disabled do you say "this is getting ridiculous"?

accessibility bullshit

I have an idea of the answer, though.

@eViLegion said:

Don't be silly.

Sorry, I always get a little silly when confronted with such intense cock.