While I can understand the frustration and the author makes some good points, a lot of the anger feels oddly misplaced.
Yes, engineer types want to solve problems with inventions rather than overhauling the entire nation's infrastructure. Maybe, just maybe, that's because inventing something is actually within their grasp, whereas wholesale replacing every civil engineer and architect in the country isn't? Or replacing every building and road regulation and the politicians who put them there?
It reminds me of the people in self-driving car threads complaining that the billions should've gone to transit. Sure, spending more on transit is a good idea, but it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded, it's politicians and the voters who put them there.
It's both "the entire nation's infrastructure." and not that.
What I mean is... many cases are individual: the ramp for that library; the door knobs/handles in that office; the floor indicators in this lift/elevator; the audio announcements (or lack of) on the busses/trains; the small print on contracts; live subtitling at the theatre; the checkout button on this web site; the checkout button on that website. You get the idea.
The vast majority of cases are individual; owned by myriad businesses, charities, foundations.
The problem the OP is circling is the same as that proposed by the Social Model of disability. Most systems present obstacles to disabled users which could have been avoided if those systems' owners and designers and included disabled people in the design phase. Instead, no-one does this claiming it's too expensive, forgetting they themselves will be disabled in the future (most people become disabled in one way or another, with age). We all kick the can down the road, rather than deal with it today. Dealing with it is hard. The "national level infrastructure" aspect is a mixture of cultural praxis/expectation and, potentially, government carrot to go with the (existing) government stick (regulation; that most people try to ignore).
(I'm not saying the Social Model of Disability is 100% right. I feel it's viewpoint is hugely instructive it's not the whole story.)
A great deal of changes proposed to make disabled peoples' lives easier end up having many fringe benefits for the non-disabled. The classic example is strollers or hand trucks going up the little dip on the sidewalk rather than having to lug them over an enormous curb.
The cost argument starts looking weak when you observe there's always billions of dollars shaken from magical couch cushions whenever it's time to wage another losing war.
But don't you see how the fact that many cases are individual makes it harder? You mention doorknobs, and it's easy to declare (which is why the US government has declared) that lever style door handles are more accessible and should be preferred. It's hard, impossibly so, to construct a world where nobody with wrist mobility problems will ever encounter a round doorknob they'd like to open.
The US has been institutionally dysfunctional for quite some time, so that puts us in an interesting position where it's easier to imagine inventing our way out of social problems with $30,000 servo-filled boxes than it is to imagine ever getting a cheaper and easier solution moved through Congress. Congress rarely seems to pass disruptive changes to law these days. Statehouses are less sclerotic, but not by much. Many of the civil rights gains touted 10+ years ago came from hacks shoved through the supreme court exploiting a partisan lean.
If you really read between the lines, much of the fuss about Mayor Mamdani in NYC has been a curious rediscovery that the government can in fact Just Do Things for people who elected it.
Congress passed the ADA in 1990. There isn't much more they can do - they have limited power. (there were a few updates since then, and I'm sure there are more tweaks they can make, but the majority of their work is done). Most of the authors rant are not things the government does or should do, government buildings generally are ADA compliant these days. The rant is about non-government things.
The biggest thing that I want is a way for ADA to realistically apply to invisible disabilities like autism. Although in theory people with invisible disabilities can get accomodations, in practice the accomodation that they really need is "stop being a shitty employer".
It also feels like a failure to understand the motivations and mechanisms behind these projects- those "misguided" college students are usually doing these projects to further their studies, as capstone or research projects that they may not be concerned with the funding for. Accessible product development is a side effect of the process, not the goal, and that's why they aren't developing scalable solutions.
"...the author makes some good points, a lot of the anger feels oddly misplaced."
a significant portion of my internet experience could be boiled down to this single sentence.
This is why raising well-rounded children is so important. Intelligent young people today are too often encouraged/forced to specialize and while it makes sense for them economically given the structure of our society, it produces lots of young, intelligent adults who can't see the forest for the trees. They can be brilliant in one area but unable to see the big picture, which is a real loss to society when they have the ambition to contribute.
This doesn't hold up to scrutiny because tech companies _do_ provide input at policy level. Sticking to transportation, auto groups and manufacturers were able to popularize "jay walking" a century ago. Tech leadership and politics mingle at the highest levels too. For ex, Trump took Huang, Cook, and Musk with him on a recent trip to China.
I quite enjoy playing with robots, but I'd rather coordinate the design and installation of 1000 ramps than be involved with one walking liability sedan chair. If you care about results and reliability, no shit a competent engineer will be picking the one that has no moving parts and a 10,000 year track record.
The fact that this is or isn't happening is basically unrelated to inventing new stuff. It's almost entirely a political issue, not one of engineering.
I just don't know what it means to prefer to be involved with the design and installation of ramps. There's a lot of ramps around, and the knowledge of how to build them is widely distributed. Is there some phenomenon I'm not aware of, where lots of people want to have ramps if only they could find a way to design and install them?
> Sure, spending more on transit is a good idea, but it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded
I think your overall point is relatively sound but that example is just terrible...
Elon Musk has repeatedly lobbied against transit expansion and his Hyperloop pitch arguably derailed HSR talks in California for half a decade while the Las Vegas teslertube prevented the expansion of a monorail to actually service the strip airport corridor.
I'll grant you Musk being terrible, no argument there, but that's not tech companies as a whole.
And California hardly needed any help to sabotage its HSR, the state's whole process for that kind of development is incredibly backwards and broken, sadly.
it's not really tech companies fault on this either but it sucks to see large amounts of investor money going to them when it could go to solving the issue more efficiently.
(although obviously it would be less profitable for the investors so it won't happen)
It all depends on the counterfactual. Could the money solve the problem, if the issues with transportation arent funding?
It seems like an institutionally made black hole that will simply consume anything put into it. I dont think flooding it with more money will fix that problem.
Investors have poured about 10 billion into waymo prior to 2026. That could only have paid for about 5 to 7 miles of urban light rail given recent project costs in Seattle, San Francisco, or New York.
And that's if you completely ignore the challenge around who has the money and assume the state can just collect extra taxes without discontent or impacts
this type of individualist responsibility diffusion is exactly why nothing happens in the US, & why France has protests the second the govt does anything bad.
no one is asking you to solve the whole problem, just be part of fighting for the real solution
> Maybe, just maybe, that's because inventing something is actually within their grasp
The problem is that inventing a solution that no-one needs or wants and then using venture money to hype it up feels like rubbing salt in a wound for the very people they're claiming to try to help.
The point is they're not actually trying to help those people. They're using them as a marketing tool to further their own ambition to make money.
Many "engineer types" will gladly care about doorknobs and infrastructure details. There is ideological opposition against from business types and some other tech types.
> it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded, it's politicians and the voters who put them there.
Tech companies pushed for exactly that outcome and spent a lot on lobbying and convincing. We totally can blame them for it.
A lot of those companies aren't even tech companies.
The companies he talks about have a Very different business culture, and thus a very different response to if an in-house tech person wanted to do anything, really.
Also, why the focus on Silicon Valley? If we're talking about useless gadgets, firstly, don't buy them and thus businesses will learn a lesson about whether the market prefers experimental or fully mature solutions out the gate, and secondly, does every single nation in this world disappoint him?
> Many "engineer types" will gladly care about doorknobs and infrastructure details.
Some will, and that's great, but as the blog post accurately points out, the invention of these things isn't the primary issue, it's the lack of implementation. And that isn't the fault of the engineers designing better doorknobs or ramps.
> Tech companies pushed for exactly that outcome and spent a lot on lobbying and convincing. We totally can blame them for it.
Bullshit. The US has had underfunded transit for near a century now because of our obsession with cars. Trying to blame this on tech companies is a lame excuse.
> Trying to blame this on tech companies is a lame excuse.
Depends. Do car manufacturers count as tech companies?
The obsession with cars and car infrastructure isn't accidental either, it's been manufactured and pushed heavily by car companies over decades. Same with the opposition to public transit. None of this stuff is happening 100% organically, it's being pushed by corporate interests via lobbying with government and funding advertising at individuals
If someone watched a press video for the RAV4, and responded by saying "Toyota Motor Corporation Hates Me and You" and demanding that Toyota fix the bus routes in their city, I would think that's pretty silly. Everything's interrelated, and no consumer demand is 100% organic, but the linkage is just too remote to make sense.
How are Tech companies fighting public transit? At least in these parts a relatively high fraction of their employees commute by (private) bus.
I can only presume that Tech companies would prefer the government provide safe, clean, and timely bussing for the public to save the company the cost and effort.
Hyperloop and Boring Company were both created as distractions from real proven transit technologies, and the latter has been quite successful at getting rail projects cancelled or at least confusing politicians enough to delay them.
No, I provided one particularly eggregious example. Uber/Lyft have also lobbied against transit. The Google shuttles OP alludes to interfered with real transit operations.
They generally would, though for the most part I imagine they're just ambivalent here. As long as workers can get to work, that's most of what they care about.
Wow, that`s very true...
> My disability is not a tragedy of biology. It is a failure of infrastructure.
Everybody is different. Tall, short, strong, week, two legs, one leg, short sighted or blind. So it makes a lot of sense to point (as a mistake) that our infrastructure favors one type over the others.
> the "Checkout" button is labeled "Button_Graphic_v2_Final"
Everybody is also different at different times in their life. Many people will develop at least one disability as they age, but even in temporary scenarios good design is accessible design.
Consider opening a door when holding a heavy package by yourself. Good doorknobs, as mentioned in the article, make a world of difference
The author is seeing that it's easier for one team to get backing (VC money, course credit, design awards, TED talk applause, etc.) for "solving" an accessibility problem than for us to enforce that entire industries follow good accessibility practices in new work and retrofit existing work. In theory industry-wide enforcement is the sort of thing legislation like the ADA solves, but obviously that hasn't been completely effective. Not sure how to fix it.
There was a subthread recently complaining about password managers and their UX problems. These aren't aimed specifically at "disabled" users, but I think it's a similar situation. We can't reliably enforce good standards for sign-in (whether that's just setting the autofill attribute correctly and choosing the correct event handlers for Javascript validators or something far more ambitious), so we expect a password manager to just deal with the web as it is. IMHO they work remarkably well given that constraint, but it's not optimal overall.
Yeah, it kinda feels like a banal thing to hate on. "They're only doing this because it's easier to create a prototype invention than to redo all design standards and enforcement in the country!" I mean, yeah? What exactly is the implied alternative for the sort of individuals targeted by the blog post?
The video of the prototype invention has the effect of making people think they don't need to be concerned about ramps and doorknobs and ADA enforcement because some teen in a garage has just solved this problem forever. People who need accommodations also require the political support of able-bodied people in order to actually make change happen, and his argument is that these videos dissipate that support.
> his argument is that these videos dissipate that support.
That seems like a major stretch. Really feels like letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here, like saying that a video about improved airbags means that nobody will care about safer road design anymore.
If it weren't for all the supermassive cars rolling around, purchased because they're ostensibly safer in a crash for the person driving them (while markedly decreasing the safety of the other driver) then maybe I could agree with you. But with so many people intentionally electing to value their individual safety at cost of the safety of others, I actually think that it makes for a great reason for them to not think about road safety! Who cares if the road is unsafe if I'm driving a tank?
The expressed (not implied) alternative in the post is for those people to stop pretending they care, and start actually caring. Stop trying to save the world. The world doesn't need an invention to save it. Just put that energy into caring about others.
People do care, but there are so many problems in the world, and only so much caring to go around.
It's extremely cynical to view it as "people pretend to care", rather than looking around and realizing there's a ton of important problems out there that the caring is distributed over. People care about disabilities, but they also care about war, about public schooling, about the environment, about feminism, about animal rights, about transparency in government, about road safety, about child well-being, about unemployment, and so on. All of these are important things, and of course there are dozens more that I haven't listed.
And inventions are sometimes actually useful. Sure, most of those prototypes will go nowhere, but every once in a while something that really helps is invented. And you can't predict in advance only the ones that will actually go on to help.
Some people actually care, but they can't always win the battle at their own companies when there are other priorities, much less go fix all the other websites, pour concrete at other businesses, etc. Is the solution for everyone to care? If, so how do you accomplish that? ("Americans with Disability Act" v2?)
The world doesn't need an invention to save it. Just put that energy into caring about others.
This is an excellent summary of the sort of anti-tech thinking that I strongly disagree with. Caring about people with Alzheimer's is well and good, but what we actually want are vaccines and cures.
"I'm sorry I tried to make a difference the best I could, I guess it's time to go back to the military industrial complex and build Robodog Terrorist Annihilator 5000"
There's a general problem on the web (and to a lesser extent computing in general) that UX is just widely terrible. I think part of this is because developers tend to work at the very edge of their competence, and getting something working at all is a major feat, with no room left over for making it work well. And part of it is developers or designers deciding they know better than everyone else. A lot of this was a solved problem back in the 80s: the platform provides a standard UI toolkit and a set of standard idioms, and all software uses them. But this lesson is ignored because developers and designers don't like it when their stuff looks and works just like everything else. Making buttons that look like everyone else's buttons means you don't set yourself apart, so we end up with custom buttons that look different and don't work as well. And, of course, are less accessible, because accessibility requires integration into the overall system that doesn't exist with a custom solution.
I was a Mac fiend back in the "beleaguered" days, and standard widgets and idioms were a big deal in that community. There was broad consensus that apps should all look and work the same, as much as that was possible. A button should be a button and a text field should be a text field no matter what program it was in. That all went out the window with the web, for no particularly good reason, and it's infecting non-web platforms at an alarming rate.
100% agree about the UX problems. Most engineers would be happy to fix those issues, but of course, companies always want the new features...because that's what customers want and what drives more $$$.
Sadly, it's true that the % of new sales generated by improving a11y beyond the bare minimum isn't going to be terribly large. That's why it's important to have regulations that mandate decent support, because the monetary incentive that drives corporate behavior just isn't there.
The author is simultaneously correct and incorrect.
The author is correct that simple and cheap changes such as ramps and door knobs are the logical fixes. And yes, based on personal experience, companies hate disabled people at the first sign that they will be an inconvenience to the company.
However, nature has no such things. If you enjoy nature and the outdoors, then user-specific equipment can provide capabilities not available through cheap alternatives. The prototypes shown are always marketing with some flair to it. Yes, the noise and bulk are terrible, but proof of concept can lead to improvements over time - eg you're looking at a some no-name competitor to the Model T (prototype suit), just imagine what the 2026 civic will look like (suits 75 years from now).
My aunt has MS. It cost her nearly $10k to have a _used_ aluminum ramp installed for her house.
She can't come to my house because the gap between the buildings that leads to my door is too narrow for a wheelchair and would require is to get two different building owners, who are not our landlord, to agree to have their building modified to make room for it. It would easily cost 50k+ to actually rebuild two buildings and the sidewalk into a functioning ramp that is the correct slope for a chair.
I used cheap as a relative term. But $10k for a ramp seems like someone got gouged. A couple hundred in lumber etc and a couple hundred for labor is doable in many cases. I see those wooden ramps at homes often.
The stakes ("nature"-as-hobby vs. navigating the built environment that 99.999% of people depend on for survival) are very different, and they're also very different from the stakes of the mythologies ("we've solved blindness!") that sell these disability dongles to the public.
(And the closer you get to nature the more tools like a dumb cane make way more sense than anything digital and battery-powered anyway.)
I do think access to the outdoors is important, though.
If you are a disabled person who wants to visit the back country then the $30,000 (or more!) robot wheelchair is your only option. We shouldn't make all mountain trails ADA accessible. My local park system has a few accessible trails (the majority are not) that can get them to enjoy nature, if that isn't enough spend the money on the robot.
However I'm only willing to take the above position because there are plenty of other options. There are a lot of fully able people who live life without going to those remote places and don't miss it. I'm not fine with saying the local grocery store is not accessible - they cannot live without that. Most of what exists in a city should be accessible to everyone despite disabilities - the cost to provide this is not that high.
The real problem IMO is for most SV companies, the audience is the investors and the press, not the actual customer. Which I guess kind of makes sense structurally -- if the idea is to grow fast and exit, then you gotta know who butters your bread, but I think it's bad structurally for problem solving and building sustainable businesses. I know in the past "small" businesses got kind of denigrated as "lifestyle" businesses, but I think we structurally need more funding around things that solve real problems but aren't going to "CHANGE EVERYTHING!!!" and maybe only end up worth a few tens of millions instead of billions or trillions.
The author's definition of a "Disability Dongle" perfectly describes the early versions of motorized wheelchairs. Why is it such an obvious conclusion that we need remake the world to be compatible with the previous generation of disability dongle instead of building the next? At the very least, couldn't we do both?
I thought the idea behind exoskeletons and fancy wheelchairs was that they allow handicapped people to go more places, not to substitute for better infrastructure. I haven't seen any of the companies behind these devices claim that they make such improvements obsolete. And as the post mentions, such infrastructure is useful for anyone with luggage, a stroller, or a hand truck.
And yes, the cost of such devices is high today, but that's true of any new technology. The first print reading devices were huge machines that cost tens of thousands of dollars. Now the technology is free on your phone. Early hearing aids were bulky, expensive, and not much better than an ear horn. Now they're affordable, compact, and have handy features like bluetooth connectivity. My guess is that most of these prototypes will fizzle and go nowhere, but some will succeed, and the lives of disabled people will be improved by them.
Sure, but only if you want to do that. I have a wheelchair bound friend who uses a $20,000 tracked wheelchair when he goes camping (I've never been camping with him, so I'm not sure how he sets up his tent...). However most people in wheelchairs don't care that much about camping and are happy to do without - which they can do because the places they want to go don't need the expensive tools. For most places the cost to make something disabled friendly is minimal.
> I thought the idea behind exoskeletons and fancy wheelchairs was that they allow handicapped people to go more places, not to substitute for better infrastructure. I haven't seen any of the companies behind these devices claim that they make such improvements obsolete.
They don't need to, and the might not even do that, but the boosters and the clipfarms are very much in on it. You don't see that "engagement" for continuous sidewalks and raised crosswalks despite how amazing they are.
And they're also very convenient as a way to avoid infrastructural improvements, you can point to disability dongles as a reason not to invest in it, that way you're conveniently not bearing the cost.
> And as the post mentions, such infrastructure is useful for anyone with luggage, a stroller, or a hand truck.
The problem is that's at best a post-hoc realisation, when that argument is made upfront it's pretty much always dismissed out of hand (very much blub adjacent), you can see it in pretty much every discussion about better walk/bike infrastructure.
What they're getting at is that the individual level gadget based accommodations can lead hurdles against making the world generally more accessible to people with disabilities by putting the onus on the disabled person to buy those gadgets in people's minds, eg "oh we don't need to pay to put ramps here there's stair climbing wheelchairs", ignoring the cost of those devices. Yes they /eventually/ get cheaper but there's still plenty of people who can't afford even the cheaper versions and it takes decades to get there.
The author seems to be screaming into the void here. The task of rebuilding infrastructure is mountainous compared to attempting new technological solutions.
I do agree with his rant about clean and semantic HTML being nessecary for accessibility. It's too often overlooked (as I scramble to check my sites for alt-text on images)
> I don’t need a stair-climbing wheelchair that costs $30,000 and requires a maintenance crew. I need better doorknobs and/or a ramp. But a ramp is boring. You can't make investors have a hard on for a ramp that doesn't connect to the cloud. You can’t give a TED Talk about a ramp. You can’t get venture capital funding for a slightly wider doorframe.
It's a really cynical way to attack people who are at least sort of trying to help.
And obviously the inventions of "a ramp" and "slightly wider door" already exist; those aren't a matter of invention, they're a matter of regulations and enforcement.
Trying to help does not give you a free pass. Pushing a wheelchair user up a ramp without asking their permission first is both "trying to help" and inconsiderate (and scary and dangerous).
Before inventing a more advanced stair climbing wheelchair, you should ask a few wheelchair users if stairs are really the issue they need solving.
I've seen visually impaired and wheelchair users have more issues with elevators than I have with not having proper ramps.
Although I have seen several wheelchair bound accessibility experts invited to give talks and there's no ramp or accessible way for them to access the stage where they're giving a talk about. . . . . accessibility.
Contributing to a net loss of funding and attention, all while making the public more ignorant and more passive, results in material harms to the population they claim to serve.
This kind of self-aggrandizement at other's expense deserves to be recognized as it is and should be met with an equal measure of contempt.
Really letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. No, we can't let people attempt new inventions, some of which may actually help, because the mere fact that people will see them may result in less attention for more basic, important stuff.
Is there solid evidence that TED talks about stair-climbing wheelchairs undermine actual regulations and investments in ramps, or is this more of a "my source is that I made it up" kind of situation?
You replied "Letting perfect be the enemy of good" several times in the comments here. I think the sentence works against the arguments you're making:
Perfect is the promise of a climb-everywhere-wheelchair. It's hypothetical, dreamed up, and causing people to forego the immediate and good solution (ramps).
You are also making the assumption that the hypothetical climb-everywhere-wheelchair is better than a ramp.
The ramp is easier to make safe, and so we need to ask about safety if it works most of the time. This also gets into maintenance, the robot with moving parts is expected to have more parts to break.
The ramp's batteries will never go dead (or if they do it doesn't matter since they are only for lights anyway?).
When there is a substantial elevation difference you need a lot of ramp--which needs a lot of space.
We already are seeing the problem with road construction--cities avoiding doing work that would require bringing the sidewalks up to current standards. I don't know what the issue is but those curb cuts for wheelchairs are labor intensive.
I don't see why it's either/or. There are a lot more legacy doors and stairs especially around the world, than there are people who could be helped with a climbing wheelchair or exoskeleton frame. And there's some infrastructure that might not be possible to upgrade, for historical preservation reasons.
Maybe the tech will always be too bulky, but it could also be rented out on location when traveling.
I’m inclined to think of Apple, who seem to bake accessibility deeply into their products. From my point of view, maybe their investment in accessibility has led to emergent breakthroughs in hardware design. This is just my impression however
This is absolutely true, although I'd broden it to "systems design" since software is part and parcel of the advancements. An example that comes to mind is AssistiveTouch for for Apple Watch (2021), which ultimately drove the requirement for a faster low-power Neural Engine, and which then evolved into Watch's mainstream Double Tap interaction (2023).
The imbalance is profound. I once tried to find a lawyer who could handle getting accommodations for a visually impaired person I knew. In practice, we probably just needed them to draft a sufficiently stern letter notifying the operator of their responsibilities under the ADA and it would have eventually gotten handled.
I spent a while trying to find law firms that specialized in this. If you do this kind of search 99% of the results are for law firms that specialize instead in defending companies against ADA suits and helping them evade their responsibilities.
I eventually was able to find exactly one law firm via contacting the bar. They weren't interested in talking to me - they said the person with the disability would need to contact them directly and pay out of their own pocket.
I have a buddy who did his Human Factors PHd at wright state/wright patt nearly 15 years ago.
"Tech people" have a lot of lies they believe, about disabilities, about valid addresses, everything.
When he told me that schools for the blind train their student to fact check things like directions and not simply rely on a single source while navigating new terrain it clicked for me that the sighted have no clue and sympathy is more honest and less presumptive/simulative than empathy.
But to be sympathetic you have to listen to actual user feedback and do actual observation, with empathy you just get to use your imagination to put yourself in their shoes.
At least for some definition of sympathy and some definition of empathy.
The casual ableism is not unique to tech but I do notice its prevalence, both here and in my career.
I am slightly disabled physically, I've made comments here a time or two where someone will make a (probably unintentionally) dismissive comment like "This is easy, just do XYZ every day" and I'll make a comment like "lots of people cannot do XYZ every day due to disability" and there's a literal backlash of commenters like "well obviously we're not talking about them," like, what? Do you think disabled people don't exist? That seems to be the implication, it comes out casually so much in my daily interactions, some people are almost offended by the idea of it even.
I mean, there's a lot going on here, contextually speaking.
If I made a comment saying "oh just write a quick bash script to change all the files to pngs" and someone commented saying "lots of people cannot write a bash script because they don't know bash", is that a useful comment?
It's in the context of health, which is what most relevant discussions regarding a disability would arise here. It's worth noting that the original comment "just do" also probably isn't very helpful to a discussion.
And people have such a poor distinction of exactly where the limits lie.
My mother was blind. I was able to teach her how to glue up PVC. (For those of you who don't know--it's a don't-touch, less than a minute of working time and sets even faster if assembled and not moving.) Could she build things out of PVC? Yes. Could she repair a pipe? No. She needed everything perfectly arranged, an existing pipe wouldn't be perfectly arranged. And when my father died people wouldn't believe the big power tools in the garage were hers, not his. (Stuff where she could measure and clamp, hands only on the tool's controls.)
EDIT: Actually, the post reads as if two different people wrote it. The first half doesn't mention anything about blindness, and the second half doesn't mention anything about wheelchairs. But there's only one credit, so I don't know what's going on.
1. it's possible that the author is blind in a legal sense but not completely blind -- e.g. maybe they only have vision in the center of their visual field, or maybe they have low acuity. You'll often see people with white canes wearing glasses, which would be pointless if they had absolutely zero vision.
2. It's not uncommon for people to use terms like "watch", "see", "hear", "listen", etc. colloquially / metaphorically; e.g. "I heard that X did Y" by someone who, pedantically speaking, _read_ that X did Y; someone typing "listen to me" on a chat app when they really mean "please read my words carefully and internalize them"; etc. If I were playing a video on on my phone, listening to what is being said but not actually watching the screen, I'd probably still say I "watched" the video.
I did check for metaphor before commenting. It'd be odd to describe the chair in question as a "Transformer having a panic attack" if you didn't actually see it. If it was noisy, I might have described it as sounding like a blender choking on concrete, for example.
I have no response for point #1, but it doesn't make my other observation go away.
There's already a lot of ramps, there's probably never going to be a lot more ramps, I think I'd like to have some technology to assist me with edge cases.
One company I was at wouldn't even keep basic first aid supplies stocked.
Facilities succesfully made a big push to get a bunch of people CPR/AED training, especially because it was free. I then made the obvious point that we had no AEDs and should get some. Absolute crickets.
...Is "disability dongle" the new "autonomous transit pods"?
For context, San Francisco being a city with billionaire tech oligarchs, lots of traffic, and OK but not great transit means there's a LOT of rich people who want to fix traffic by way of almost literally reinventing the wheel.
We already know how to move lots of people to a particular destination very quickly: some variation[0] of a bus or train on dedicated right-of-way. The problem is that America is specifically engineered to make operating transit unprofitable outside of high density urban areas, acquiring land for that right-of-way in high density is astronomically expensive, and increasing density limits to break this chicken-and-egg problem is a political nightmare in most places.
This is exactly the kind of problem Silicon Valley hates having to solve because it is, in a sense, the enemy. A good chunk of Big Tech got drunk on Ayn Rand, and transit in particular presents a problem that Objectivist philosophy is unwilling to engage with. To solve it requires both negotiating with the urban planning equivalent of a Soviet central planner and long-term subsidy through coercive taxation.
The pitch for all these projects is ultimately a complicated heavy engineering project to make a train seem less like a train and more like a tech product. Think like the Hyperloop, a concept for a vaccum-sealed tube in which "pods" could be shot through at high speeds. This doesn't need to exist, heavy rail can absolutely go 200mph, we can already bury it underground, and there is no need to have individualized vehicles aside from a mistaken belief that Americans are allergic to sharing space with other Americans.
The one version of this that actually got built is the Vegas Loop, which despite the name and the hype has nothing to do with Hyperloop and was just Teslas driving down a one-way tunnel. All the hype around it delayed actual transportation. As I hinted at above, federal politicians[1] in America would really rather you not take a train. Americans themselves will happily ride them[2], but getting local funding for it is a battle. And all the talk of hyperloops and pods made local politicians hold off on fighting that fight for a good decade, so there's a lot of transit we're missing, because the stupid sci-fantasy ideas never panned out.
[0] I am being very broad here - France has it's obsession with rubber-tired trains, Mexico City has an extensive BRT network that provides metro-like service frequencies.
[1] Joe Biden excluded
[2] We abuse the shit out of commercial aviation to do things high-speed trains can do better, so it's not like we're afraid to share space. The only thing is that Americans don't know how to stay quiet on a train or plane - but that doesn't make the train unprofitable or impractical.
Yes, engineer types want to solve problems with inventions rather than overhauling the entire nation's infrastructure. Maybe, just maybe, that's because inventing something is actually within their grasp, whereas wholesale replacing every civil engineer and architect in the country isn't? Or replacing every building and road regulation and the politicians who put them there?
It reminds me of the people in self-driving car threads complaining that the billions should've gone to transit. Sure, spending more on transit is a good idea, but it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded, it's politicians and the voters who put them there.
What I mean is... many cases are individual: the ramp for that library; the door knobs/handles in that office; the floor indicators in this lift/elevator; the audio announcements (or lack of) on the busses/trains; the small print on contracts; live subtitling at the theatre; the checkout button on this web site; the checkout button on that website. You get the idea.
The vast majority of cases are individual; owned by myriad businesses, charities, foundations.
The problem the OP is circling is the same as that proposed by the Social Model of disability. Most systems present obstacles to disabled users which could have been avoided if those systems' owners and designers and included disabled people in the design phase. Instead, no-one does this claiming it's too expensive, forgetting they themselves will be disabled in the future (most people become disabled in one way or another, with age). We all kick the can down the road, rather than deal with it today. Dealing with it is hard. The "national level infrastructure" aspect is a mixture of cultural praxis/expectation and, potentially, government carrot to go with the (existing) government stick (regulation; that most people try to ignore).
(I'm not saying the Social Model of Disability is 100% right. I feel it's viewpoint is hugely instructive it's not the whole story.)
The cost argument starts looking weak when you observe there's always billions of dollars shaken from magical couch cushions whenever it's time to wage another losing war.
If you really read between the lines, much of the fuss about Mayor Mamdani in NYC has been a curious rediscovery that the government can in fact Just Do Things for people who elected it.
Forcibly confiscate some people’s money to spend $30 million opening one grocery store.
Government run child care, because governments caring for people’s children is famously the best way to raise kids.
Doxing 900,000 people who own a second residence.
What a guy!
Give that guy a chance to properly fuck things up before you pass judgment.
And anyway, since life isn’t a Git branch, we’ll never know if the alternatives were better or worse in practice.
I remember voting to fund high speed rail, and the funding was quite generous...
I mean, it kind of is when the tech company is spending a lot of money lobbying against transit in favor of expanding their product's market share.
I'm not aware of any tech company lobbying against doorknobs or ramps, and I don't see any particular reason for them to care.
There's been some general corporate push back against the expense of some ADA fixes.
> I'm not aware of any tech company lobbying against doorknobs or ramps
Nobody has put forth that argument.
I think your overall point is relatively sound but that example is just terrible...
Elon Musk has repeatedly lobbied against transit expansion and his Hyperloop pitch arguably derailed HSR talks in California for half a decade while the Las Vegas teslertube prevented the expansion of a monorail to actually service the strip airport corridor.
And California hardly needed any help to sabotage its HSR, the state's whole process for that kind of development is incredibly backwards and broken, sadly.
(although obviously it would be less profitable for the investors so it won't happen)
I think thats the core frustration
It seems like an institutionally made black hole that will simply consume anything put into it. I dont think flooding it with more money will fix that problem.
Investors have poured about 10 billion into waymo prior to 2026. That could only have paid for about 5 to 7 miles of urban light rail given recent project costs in Seattle, San Francisco, or New York.
And that's if you completely ignore the challenge around who has the money and assume the state can just collect extra taxes without discontent or impacts
agreed on the LV monorail though
no one is asking you to solve the whole problem, just be part of fighting for the real solution
So you don’t solve the problem, you just solve it for a tiny group of wealthy people
The problem is that inventing a solution that no-one needs or wants and then using venture money to hype it up feels like rubbing salt in a wound for the very people they're claiming to try to help.
The point is they're not actually trying to help those people. They're using them as a marketing tool to further their own ambition to make money.
The anger is understandable.
> it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded, it's politicians and the voters who put them there.
Tech companies pushed for exactly that outcome and spent a lot on lobbying and convincing. We totally can blame them for it.
The companies he talks about have a Very different business culture, and thus a very different response to if an in-house tech person wanted to do anything, really.
Also, why the focus on Silicon Valley? If we're talking about useless gadgets, firstly, don't buy them and thus businesses will learn a lesson about whether the market prefers experimental or fully mature solutions out the gate, and secondly, does every single nation in this world disappoint him?
Some will, and that's great, but as the blog post accurately points out, the invention of these things isn't the primary issue, it's the lack of implementation. And that isn't the fault of the engineers designing better doorknobs or ramps.
> Tech companies pushed for exactly that outcome and spent a lot on lobbying and convincing. We totally can blame them for it.
Bullshit. The US has had underfunded transit for near a century now because of our obsession with cars. Trying to blame this on tech companies is a lame excuse.
Depends. Do car manufacturers count as tech companies?
The obsession with cars and car infrastructure isn't accidental either, it's been manufactured and pushed heavily by car companies over decades. Same with the opposition to public transit. None of this stuff is happening 100% organically, it's being pushed by corporate interests via lobbying with government and funding advertising at individuals
I can only presume that Tech companies would prefer the government provide safe, clean, and timely bussing for the public to save the company the cost and effort.
Musk is an asshole, no argument there, but most tech company CEOs aren't nearly that crazy.
You won't always be able to count on the threat of exposing their sexual habits, which has been working for decades.
Everybody is different. Tall, short, strong, week, two legs, one leg, short sighted or blind. So it makes a lot of sense to point (as a mistake) that our infrastructure favors one type over the others.
> the "Checkout" button is labeled "Button_Graphic_v2_Final"
This is a very good point.
There was a subthread recently complaining about password managers and their UX problems. These aren't aimed specifically at "disabled" users, but I think it's a similar situation. We can't reliably enforce good standards for sign-in (whether that's just setting the autofill attribute correctly and choosing the correct event handlers for Javascript validators or something far more ambitious), so we expect a password manager to just deal with the web as it is. IMHO they work remarkably well given that constraint, but it's not optimal overall.
That seems like a major stretch. Really feels like letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here, like saying that a video about improved airbags means that nobody will care about safer road design anymore.
Isn't really teens in garages perpetuating this is it though, its universities and companies milking government funding.
It's extremely cynical to view it as "people pretend to care", rather than looking around and realizing there's a ton of important problems out there that the caring is distributed over. People care about disabilities, but they also care about war, about public schooling, about the environment, about feminism, about animal rights, about transparency in government, about road safety, about child well-being, about unemployment, and so on. All of these are important things, and of course there are dozens more that I haven't listed.
And inventions are sometimes actually useful. Sure, most of those prototypes will go nowhere, but every once in a while something that really helps is invented. And you can't predict in advance only the ones that will actually go on to help.
This is an excellent summary of the sort of anti-tech thinking that I strongly disagree with. Caring about people with Alzheimer's is well and good, but what we actually want are vaccines and cures.
I was a Mac fiend back in the "beleaguered" days, and standard widgets and idioms were a big deal in that community. There was broad consensus that apps should all look and work the same, as much as that was possible. A button should be a button and a text field should be a text field no matter what program it was in. That all went out the window with the web, for no particularly good reason, and it's infecting non-web platforms at an alarming rate.
Sadly, it's true that the % of new sales generated by improving a11y beyond the bare minimum isn't going to be terribly large. That's why it's important to have regulations that mandate decent support, because the monetary incentive that drives corporate behavior just isn't there.
The author is correct that simple and cheap changes such as ramps and door knobs are the logical fixes. And yes, based on personal experience, companies hate disabled people at the first sign that they will be an inconvenience to the company.
However, nature has no such things. If you enjoy nature and the outdoors, then user-specific equipment can provide capabilities not available through cheap alternatives. The prototypes shown are always marketing with some flair to it. Yes, the noise and bulk are terrible, but proof of concept can lead to improvements over time - eg you're looking at a some no-name competitor to the Model T (prototype suit), just imagine what the 2026 civic will look like (suits 75 years from now).
My aunt has MS. It cost her nearly $10k to have a _used_ aluminum ramp installed for her house.
She can't come to my house because the gap between the buildings that leads to my door is too narrow for a wheelchair and would require is to get two different building owners, who are not our landlord, to agree to have their building modified to make room for it. It would easily cost 50k+ to actually rebuild two buildings and the sidewalk into a functioning ramp that is the correct slope for a chair.
(And the closer you get to nature the more tools like a dumb cane make way more sense than anything digital and battery-powered anyway.)
I do think access to the outdoors is important, though.
However I'm only willing to take the above position because there are plenty of other options. There are a lot of fully able people who live life without going to those remote places and don't miss it. I'm not fine with saying the local grocery store is not accessible - they cannot live without that. Most of what exists in a city should be accessible to everyone despite disabilities - the cost to provide this is not that high.
And yes, the cost of such devices is high today, but that's true of any new technology. The first print reading devices were huge machines that cost tens of thousands of dollars. Now the technology is free on your phone. Early hearing aids were bulky, expensive, and not much better than an ear horn. Now they're affordable, compact, and have handy features like bluetooth connectivity. My guess is that most of these prototypes will fizzle and go nowhere, but some will succeed, and the lives of disabled people will be improved by them.
They don't need to, and the might not even do that, but the boosters and the clipfarms are very much in on it. You don't see that "engagement" for continuous sidewalks and raised crosswalks despite how amazing they are.
And they're also very convenient as a way to avoid infrastructural improvements, you can point to disability dongles as a reason not to invest in it, that way you're conveniently not bearing the cost.
> And as the post mentions, such infrastructure is useful for anyone with luggage, a stroller, or a hand truck.
The problem is that's at best a post-hoc realisation, when that argument is made upfront it's pretty much always dismissed out of hand (very much blub adjacent), you can see it in pretty much every discussion about better walk/bike infrastructure.
I do agree with his rant about clean and semantic HTML being nessecary for accessibility. It's too often overlooked (as I scramble to check my sites for alt-text on images)
Someone more inclined toward fraud than me should figure out how to make a cloud connected ramp as a way to get VCs to fund more ramps.
And obviously the inventions of "a ramp" and "slightly wider door" already exist; those aren't a matter of invention, they're a matter of regulations and enforcement.
Before inventing a more advanced stair climbing wheelchair, you should ask a few wheelchair users if stairs are really the issue they need solving.
I've seen visually impaired and wheelchair users have more issues with elevators than I have with not having proper ramps.
Although I have seen several wheelchair bound accessibility experts invited to give talks and there's no ramp or accessible way for them to access the stage where they're giving a talk about. . . . . accessibility.
This kind of self-aggrandizement at other's expense deserves to be recognized as it is and should be met with an equal measure of contempt.
Is there solid evidence that TED talks about stair-climbing wheelchairs undermine actual regulations and investments in ramps, or is this more of a "my source is that I made it up" kind of situation?
Perfect is the promise of a climb-everywhere-wheelchair. It's hypothetical, dreamed up, and causing people to forego the immediate and good solution (ramps).
The ramp is easier to make safe, and so we need to ask about safety if it works most of the time. This also gets into maintenance, the robot with moving parts is expected to have more parts to break.
The ramp's batteries will never go dead (or if they do it doesn't matter since they are only for lights anyway?).
When there is a substantial elevation difference you need a lot of ramp--which needs a lot of space.
We already are seeing the problem with road construction--cities avoiding doing work that would require bringing the sidewalks up to current standards. I don't know what the issue is but those curb cuts for wheelchairs are labor intensive.
Maybe the tech will always be too bulky, but it could also be rented out on location when traveling.
>> You can’t get venture capital funding for a slightly wider doorframe.
>> Concrete is not "disruptive."
Well, not with that attitude.
You simply need these 3 things:
1. A revenue subscription model
2. Execute at massive scale by leveraging AI
3. An advertising model
Now you can change the world
I spent a while trying to find law firms that specialized in this. If you do this kind of search 99% of the results are for law firms that specialize instead in defending companies against ADA suits and helping them evade their responsibilities.
I eventually was able to find exactly one law firm via contacting the bar. They weren't interested in talking to me - they said the person with the disability would need to contact them directly and pay out of their own pocket.
Years later that website still isn't accessible.
"Tech people" have a lot of lies they believe, about disabilities, about valid addresses, everything.
When he told me that schools for the blind train their student to fact check things like directions and not simply rely on a single source while navigating new terrain it clicked for me that the sighted have no clue and sympathy is more honest and less presumptive/simulative than empathy.
But to be sympathetic you have to listen to actual user feedback and do actual observation, with empathy you just get to use your imagination to put yourself in their shoes.
At least for some definition of sympathy and some definition of empathy.
I am slightly disabled physically, I've made comments here a time or two where someone will make a (probably unintentionally) dismissive comment like "This is easy, just do XYZ every day" and I'll make a comment like "lots of people cannot do XYZ every day due to disability" and there's a literal backlash of commenters like "well obviously we're not talking about them," like, what? Do you think disabled people don't exist? That seems to be the implication, it comes out casually so much in my daily interactions, some people are almost offended by the idea of it even.
If I made a comment saying "oh just write a quick bash script to change all the files to pngs" and someone commented saying "lots of people cannot write a bash script because they don't know bash", is that a useful comment?
Shut up monkeys, I will tell you what you want.
Instead of trying to refute the OP, maybe people should listen to what he's saying.
I've yet to see good outcomes from self-infantilizing.
My mother was blind. I was able to teach her how to glue up PVC. (For those of you who don't know--it's a don't-touch, less than a minute of working time and sets even faster if assembled and not moving.) Could she build things out of PVC? Yes. Could she repair a pipe? No. She needed everything perfectly arranged, an existing pipe wouldn't be perfectly arranged. And when my father died people wouldn't believe the big power tools in the garage were hers, not his. (Stuff where she could measure and clamp, hands only on the tool's controls.)
>And watching the video,
>I am blind
Um...
EDIT: Actually, the post reads as if two different people wrote it. The first half doesn't mention anything about blindness, and the second half doesn't mention anything about wheelchairs. But there's only one credit, so I don't know what's going on.
2. It's not uncommon for people to use terms like "watch", "see", "hear", "listen", etc. colloquially / metaphorically; e.g. "I heard that X did Y" by someone who, pedantically speaking, _read_ that X did Y; someone typing "listen to me" on a chat app when they really mean "please read my words carefully and internalize them"; etc. If I were playing a video on on my phone, listening to what is being said but not actually watching the screen, I'd probably still say I "watched" the video.
I have no response for point #1, but it doesn't make my other observation go away.
Facilities succesfully made a big push to get a bunch of people CPR/AED training, especially because it was free. I then made the obvious point that we had no AEDs and should get some. Absolute crickets.
For context, San Francisco being a city with billionaire tech oligarchs, lots of traffic, and OK but not great transit means there's a LOT of rich people who want to fix traffic by way of almost literally reinventing the wheel.
We already know how to move lots of people to a particular destination very quickly: some variation[0] of a bus or train on dedicated right-of-way. The problem is that America is specifically engineered to make operating transit unprofitable outside of high density urban areas, acquiring land for that right-of-way in high density is astronomically expensive, and increasing density limits to break this chicken-and-egg problem is a political nightmare in most places.
This is exactly the kind of problem Silicon Valley hates having to solve because it is, in a sense, the enemy. A good chunk of Big Tech got drunk on Ayn Rand, and transit in particular presents a problem that Objectivist philosophy is unwilling to engage with. To solve it requires both negotiating with the urban planning equivalent of a Soviet central planner and long-term subsidy through coercive taxation.
The pitch for all these projects is ultimately a complicated heavy engineering project to make a train seem less like a train and more like a tech product. Think like the Hyperloop, a concept for a vaccum-sealed tube in which "pods" could be shot through at high speeds. This doesn't need to exist, heavy rail can absolutely go 200mph, we can already bury it underground, and there is no need to have individualized vehicles aside from a mistaken belief that Americans are allergic to sharing space with other Americans.
The one version of this that actually got built is the Vegas Loop, which despite the name and the hype has nothing to do with Hyperloop and was just Teslas driving down a one-way tunnel. All the hype around it delayed actual transportation. As I hinted at above, federal politicians[1] in America would really rather you not take a train. Americans themselves will happily ride them[2], but getting local funding for it is a battle. And all the talk of hyperloops and pods made local politicians hold off on fighting that fight for a good decade, so there's a lot of transit we're missing, because the stupid sci-fantasy ideas never panned out.
[0] I am being very broad here - France has it's obsession with rubber-tired trains, Mexico City has an extensive BRT network that provides metro-like service frequencies.
[1] Joe Biden excluded
[2] We abuse the shit out of commercial aviation to do things high-speed trains can do better, so it's not like we're afraid to share space. The only thing is that Americans don't know how to stay quiet on a train or plane - but that doesn't make the train unprofitable or impractical.