Follow

If you release a program for use by other people, accessibility is your responsibility.
If you create a website for other people to use, accessibility is your responsibility.
If you make a platform for people to come together and meet on, accessibility is your responsibility.
If you make a framework for other developers to build things on top of, accessibility is your responsibility.

This means that if you make a script that does something that only you personally will get anything out of, that's fine, make it as inaccessible as you like, only you will deal with any consequences that arise from that. But if you make something you're going to release to the public, and you don't know a thing about accessibility, don't you dare expect users to do to the work of learning your codebase, and making your thing accessible.

@devinprater This reminds me of a heated FSF thread. FSF says that FOSS need not be accessible at all, which is technically true, but then they also say that all copies of the source code must be distributed w/binaries if binaries are distributed. But then they relaxed that b/c ppl often just want the binaries. So FSF says it’s good enough to distribute a link to the source w/the binaries.

@devinprater And that’s where shit falls apart. The link to the source code may be in some walled garden. And to that FSF says distribution is not a FOSS requirement.

@devinprater So in the end we have accessible binaries floating around with inaccessible source code and inaccessible docs, yet that still gets the “free software” label.

@koherecoWatchdog I think you and @devinprater are talking about different kinds of accessibility

@huy_ngo @devinprater ah, sorry. I guess he meant accommodation for impairments & disabilities.

@koherecoWatchdog

Well, GPL is based on the fact that a user of some software can get the source code and modify it.

GPL does NOT require that one distribute the source code to anyone but the user.

GPL does NOT require that the software is free of charge for a user. I can make GPL code for a large enterprise to use it for their internal use, charge for it and not give it to the public.

Herein lies all the complications regarding accessibility, morally vs legally.

@devinprater

@devinprater what if I release my software publicly but don't expect anyone to actually use it?

@devinprater

> If you release a program for use [...] your responsibitlity.

While I understand your sentiment, I have to disagree. A free software author is not responsible for anything. If you want some feature [in this case accessibility], you can ask the developer or implement it yourself or pay someone to work on it. But don't you dare to demand it.

(1/2)

@devinprater

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.

(2/2)

@redstarfish Then they better not whine when their software isn’t used in the places they want, like schools, government, medicine, etc.

@devinprater @redstarfish At least with free software you have options to change and configure stuff, such as Emacspeak + modes for utilities. With propietary software… good luck.

@anthk @redstarfish If you know how, yes. Let's look for a second at word processors then. Microsoft Word has just about every part accessible, has even sounds for actions like saving, spell checking, dialog opening, that stuff. LibreOffice has accessibility issues everywhere, no sounds, nothing like that.

@devinprater @anthk

Microsoft office is developed by billion doller organisation for years and LibreOffice is mostly done by volunteers. It'll need time to catch up.

Till then maybe people that need those features need to organise start working on it.

@redstarfish @anthk So you want people who are probably going to be new to coding working on something that needs to be stable, with good quality code?

@devinprater @anthk

Yes :-)

Forget about making it stable, good quality, and focus on implementing the feature you need. Because that's what matters to *you*.

People who care about "code quality" can work to improve it if they care enough.

This also provides good opportunity to make money out of free software. You can tell people you are working on it if they want this feature sooner, they help you with donations or coding.

@devinprater @redstarfish org-mode would have far more sense for blind people. You forget about the layout, you just structure the document between tags, and then org-mode will export that to any document format you’d like, perfectly good for anyone. I say this as a sighted person: word processor are shit for writting documments, more than often the document’s layout scrambles itself with just a silly “intro” keypress.

Because it’s difficult to spot sometimes when the layout it’s formatted and when it’s not. We just see a blank space between distinct formatted paragraphs, we are as aware as you as the formatting unless we put the cursor on the blank space and type out somethin or by looking up at the changing toolbars. I hate them.

@anthk @redstarfish It would, if it were more widespread like Markdown is. I like Asciidoc even more though.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Light space

A home where one can be themselves.