• 2 Posts
  • 715 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • I possibly disagree — I’m a part time wheelchair user (as well as other disability related devices/aids) and I’m always fascinated by how dynamic and relative the concept of “accessibility” is, even if we’re only considering the perspective of one person. For example, for me, using my wheelchair often means trading one kind of pain for another, and depending on specific circumstances, that might not be worth it. Being disabled often forces you to get creative in hacking together many different solutions, balancing the tradeoffs such that the “cost” of using one tool is accounted for by the benefits of another. I wish I could recall some specific examples to share with you, but I have seen friends be incredibly inventive in using regular items in a context that makes them into accessibility devices, if that makes sense.

    This is all to say that expensive hardware, learning curves, unpleasant tradeoffs like friction of wearing — all of these things are core to my experience of most accessibility devices I’ve ever used. For any prospective accessibility device, the key question is “given the various costs and inconveniences, are the benefits of this thing worth it?”. Even without knowing much about this specific device, I would wager that for some disabled people, it absolutely would be net helpful.

    That being said, you raise a good point, in that “accessibility” is often used as marketing hype, and in its worst form, this looks like disabled people’s experiences being exploited to develop and sell a product that doesn’t actually care about being accessible, so long as it has the appearance of such for investors. I’m not saying that’s what this product is doing, but certainly I am primed to be wary of stuff like this.

    Even besides the exploitative instances that I allude to, you’re right to draw attention to existing products on the market. It’s possible that some disabled people struggle to make use of devices that would be “good enough” for most (and maybe these people are who this new device is aimed at helping), but with accessibility stuff, it’s far too easy for well-meaning people to jump to making new gadgets or tools, instead of meaningfully examining why the existing “good enough” solutions are inaccessible for some. A specific example that’s coming to mind is someone I met who had a super high tech prosthetic limb that was so hilariously impractical compared to her existing options that this new one literally never got used. She said that it’s a shame that such an expensive bit of kit is made functionally useless by much more basic designs, but she’s learned that excited engineers are rarely receptive to being told about the practical problems with their new devices.

    TL;DR: i think your instinct to be cautious about invoking accessibility is wise, though my own caution comes from a different context


    Edit: I watched the video and I feel less dubious of this device after learning that this particular project arose following an email from someone who was mute and would find something like this useful. It helps that CharaChorder’s chording keyboards are established (albeit super niche) products, and this project is less about a fancy new device, and more like “chording keyboards like ours allows for faster typing than any other method, with training. Maybe this means it could be an effective text-to-speech input method. Let’s find out”.



















  • Congrats! It feels incredible when a " ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ worth a try!" repair turns out well; I can practically feel your astonished jubilance through the screen.

    I’ve got to the point where I have enough experience fixing things that I feel completely confident in my ability to have an initial look at the problem (possibly opening the device), and to know whether I’m likely to break things worse by dabbling. Sometimes this means immediately closing up the device, but increasingly often I feel comfortable taking a crack at the problem, and sometimes it even works!


  • At one point, when I was a baby still in my mother’s womb, I had cells in between my fingers. Had I been born like that, I would have had webbed fingers. I sometimes feel sorry for those cells: they were instructed to undergo controlled cell death so that I could have fingers. I’m glad that cells can’t think l, but even still, I wish that I could explain, to these cells that I never knew as my own, that their sacrifice was worthwhile, because they died in service to me, an organism far more complex than any cell or tissue could be alone.

    I’m glad that these cells can’t feel (at least in a way that I can understand), because I know that my explanation would not be enough for them: I know this because for most of my life, I have understood that people like us are acceptable sacrifices on the altar on the free market., and that feels terrible. I rage at being told that my suffering is worth it, for the Greater Good, because that posits that our lives aren’t considered to be Good enough to be worth acknowledging beyond our instrumental value.

    When I think about the cells that used to exist between my fingers, there’s a silly part of me that even feels guilty that they couldn’t consent to the whole ordeal, but I suppose my compassion for them is part of that “greater good” they died for. I know that the free market feels no such guilt at throwing humans into the meat grinder, because it is closer to being a clump of mindless, cancerous cells than it is to a person. And yet, as you say, we’re supposed to celebrate “innovations” — to celebrate ever more rapid “growth” that comes at the expense of people’s lives? It’s disgusting.