[bradley13]

Why does everything have to be 100% accessible?

I'm a prof. When I have a student with special needs in my class, the administration tells me ahead of time. I make the necessary allowances - and those differ from case to case, anyway: whether it's extra time in exams, or someone who is deaf, or someone who is blind, or whatever.

When it happens, I make the necessary allowances. When I don't, then...I don't.

The obsession that everything has to be 100% accessible, for every kind of disability, all of the time? That's just nuts, not to mention a complete waste of resources.

[altairprime]

The attitude they’re contesting is that accessibility is a “minimum compliance” category: people tend to invest zero effort into accessibility until caught, and enforcement that waits for students to report suffering is terrible, so automated analysis of accessibility that is ‘always on’ dramatically raises the water level for all accessibility. It won’t reach 100% accessible but it’ll reach a lot higher than the 1% accessible it was otherwise, and that’s a valuable result worth obsessing over. Doesn’t have to be complex: “Your video was uploaded without captions”, “your PDF is missing a text layer” are probably the two most valuable and simplest to implement rejections on the table.

[Telemakhos]

Universalizing statements like "100% accessible" are usually bad ideas. In this case, it's driven not by administrators but the Department of Justice, which is rulemaking accessibility via consent decrees. I think a lot of people miss that and just blame the administrators. Rulemaking is a long process, and the rules being made are stuck in a time before AI could reliably read a book to a blind person: the rules shift the onus onto the content creators, when we've created a whole new ecosystem of ways to eliminate the onus. The DOJ should probably step back and stop trying to regulate this, because the market has already solved it.