Blind Main
The main community at rblind.com, for discussion of all things blindness.
You can find the rules for this community, and all other communities we run, here: https://ourblind.com/comunity-guidelines/ Lemmy specifics: By participating on the rblind.com Lemmy server, you are able to participate on other communities not run, controlled, or hosted by us. When doing so, you are expected to abide by all of the rules of those communities, in edition to also following the rules linked above. Should the rules of another community conflict with our rules, so long as you are participating from the rblind.com website, our rules take priority. Should we receive complaints from other instances or communities that you are repeatedly, knowingly, and maliciously breaking there rules, we may take moderator action against you, even if your posts comply with all of the rblind.com rules linked above.
view the rest of the comments
Sure, but you need to read what I quoted. I purely addressed the flawed claim that better code comes from those paid to write it. The opposite is true. It’s unclear to what extent that bias has influenced @noahcarver@rblind.com’s thesis. Though I have no notable issues with anything else @noahcarver@rblind.com wrote (much of which is beyond my expertise w.r.t accessibility).
And to be clear, “better code” strictly refers to quality, not accessibility. Accessibility is a design factor.
That’s right. But then neither is the commercial code I worked on. That would be outside of my domain. I do backends for the most part. The rare UI work I did was for a tiny user base of internal developers within the org and accessibility was not part of the requirements. I worked on a UI for external users briefly but again no requirements for accessibility (which would be very unlikely for that particular product).
In any case, this sidetrack is irrelevant to what you replied to. It’s important to correct bogus claims that being paid to write code is conducive to quality. Some right-wingers I know never miss the opportunity to use the phrase “good enough for government work” because they want to push the mentality that capitalism promotes superior quality. It’s a widespread misconception that needs correction whenever it manifests.
Paying someone to write accessible code should theoretically work on both free software and non-free software. AFAICT the reason non-free software would accommodate blind users is that the market share is large enough to justify the profit-driven bottom line and those users are forced to pay for it (as all users are). In the FOSS domain, payments (“bounties”) are optional. Has this been tried? If not, then you’re relying on blind FOSS developers to suit their own needs in a way that benefits all blind users.
From the perspective of a blind person, your metric for code quality is all wrong and not useful. I can’t use inaccessible software. Open source refuses to embrace accessibility. It’s therefor worse in every way that matters to me and Noah. Commercial developers produce accessible software. Open source developers don’t. It’s as simple as that.