(I guess almost all HN readers are familiar with this term from software "accessibility" design. USA English is my native (and at present, only) language but I find these terms odd.)

"Bean counters said I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair. Did it anyway. Ramps are expensive."

Disabilities can be conflicting which makes catering to all difficult.

Consider, for example, that someone who is deaf will usually use a flashing light to wake them up. However, if you are someone that's prone to seizures, that flashing light is now something that can trigger a medical emergency.

Now consider how fire alarms typically work, big flashing lights and loud sirens.

With accessibility you kind of can't please everyone. Not saying you shouldn't try, but there needs to be some level of "best effort" applied.

This is very true for the USA, but not so much elsewhere. It's common in Europe for buildings to have no wheelchair access at all.

>pull-able

To any reasonable average person, these mean the same thing.

If you choose to use much less convenient taxis instead of an Uber because of a refusal to use cellphones that’s on you.

> despite the fact that iPhones are a minority of devices out there and in most places they are luxury devices

iPhones are big a minority in the US - where the college is located.

And Google not having accessibility options as good as the iPhone sounds like someone needs to be suing Google under the ADA.

But do you really think blind people are not buying devices that actually work for them?

Good question about accessibility. I have no idea. But it's not as though our society is a perfect utopia for the disabled. I can only imagine it would have gone far worse.

While the accessibility may be mediocre, we do have a modicum of it.

This is how many people think about accessibility, especially starting out (myself included). An alternative framing is to realize that some people have permanent disabilities, some have temporary disabilities, and some have situational disabilities.

For example, about 15 percent of people have dyslexia. They have a more-or-less permanent challenge with reading. In the second category are people with temporary reading challenges. Someone with a concussion, stroke, or other traumatic brain injury often have similar reading challenges, that sometimes (but not always) can get better over time. And in the last category, we have people who have situational challenges, such as "I'm on in the subway and the car is moving in 3 axes and I'm trying to read on my smartphone". This is a situational challenge, but a challenge nonetheless.

If we focus only on the first category of people, the group who might be assisted by a reading-related accessibility feature seem relatively small. But when you realize that there are also temporary and situational challenges that can be ameliorated by the exact same feature, then it becomes clear that the number of people who can be helped is actually much greater than originally appeared.

Ditto for "wheelchair ramps" that are used by people with strollers or crutches for broken legs.

So clearly affordances to assist the disabled are going to benefit everyone ... eventually.

At least in the USA, the ADA ensures that many places are built to be wheelchair-accessible; bathrooms in public places have accommodations, grocery stores have ramps, stairs always have an alternative, etc

I'm pretty sure in most countries in the world, mobility would be far lower for the disabled.

Where do you draw the line though? If accessibility is not a requirement of doing business, disabled people can't access a large proportion of places, either out of indifference (it's cheaper) or just not considering it.

Furthermore, the ADA (at 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12182) defines discrimination to include:

> a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities[...], where such removal is readily achievable

with readily achievable meaning:

> easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include—

> (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter;

> (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility;

> (C) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities

In addition, for the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2) ("facilities altered [...] must be made readily accessible"), there is a requirement that "such alterations [...] are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope" (I'm unclear on the claim that "the Facility was designed and constructed (or both) after January 26, 1993" as this appears to contradict the article's claim that "her nearly 100 year-old building needed some upgrades").

There does not appear to be any intent to place any undue burden on a business.

The first anecdote in a post is about the author deciding not to build something that could be a useful accessibility tool, specifically because she sees it as a net negative - which might not be how she would think about it if she'd included people with disabilities in her analysis.

Of course, this is not the end of the world; but there are cases where this kind of thinking could be much worse. "We won't put in an elevator - people should be okay with the discomfort of climbing the stairs." In fact, people did that so much that we had to pass the ACA to stop it!

I am reminded of https://imgur.com/a4p4KLa.