[speg]

This happens in the real world too, aka the sidewalk effect. The cutouts in the sidewalk for wheelchairs are now used by everyone else too for their: strollers, bikes, shopping carts, and anyone else who doesn't want to raise their foot an extra couple of inches.

[Goosey]

There was a great TED talk about how cities which are well designed for the disabled (in the case of this talk, the blind) are well designed for all. http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_downey_design_with_the_blind_... Definitely a great concept to keep in mind.

[lmm]

OTOH I've seen pedestrians almost-hit by an out-of-control car that would have been stopped by a proper kerb but instead hit one of those ramps.

[DanBC]

I have seen thousands of wheelchair users. I have never seen a car that i) would have been stopped by a kerb and ii) would not have been stopped by a ramp.

Your point illustrates the subject line nicely. Very many people have a disability, yet you're suggesting very rare benefits of keeping kerbs that hamper people with disabilities.

[RobAley]

Bear in mind that, if that really happens, it is a much, much less frequent occurrence than people being aided by the dropped kerbs and not stumbling/falling with pushchairs, wheelchairs or unsteady feet when mounting full height curbs . The proper fix for that also isn't making kerbs full height again.

[colanderman]

I've seen multiple bicyclists almost hit by in-controls cars because they couldn't ride safely on the sidewalks without those ramps.

(Yes, riding on sidewalks is technically illegal. There are many places where it's much much safer and there are no pedestrians to bother.)

[bunderbunder]

In most cases you're more likely to be hit by a car if you're riding on the sidewalk. Last numbers I suggest that your risk of being killed by a car is about twice as high when you're on the sidewalk.

The reason is simple: Bikes move quickly, and bikes on the sidewalk are much harder for motorists to see than bikes on the street. That makes it extremely difficult - sometimes impossible - for drivers to see or anticipate when a bike is about to cross a street, alley, or driveway. Meanwhile, cyclists are relatively unaware of their surroundings compared to pedestrians, for the same reason that motorists are: They're moving faster. These two factors can easily combine to create a sudden use-of-space conflict that cyclists never win.

[GotAnyMegadeth]

That might the case for bikes on the pavement in general, but there are some stretches of road where the road would be more dangerous.

[mreiland]

lmao, "use-of-space conflict"

[JoshTriplett]

> Yes, riding on sidewalks is technically illegal.

That differs by jurisdiction; in many places it's completely legal.

[dllthomas]

Just take a lane already, and be where you're supposed to be.

[na85]

No way. Drivers where I live are terrible. Three friends of mine were hit while road cycling in a span of 4 months.

It's far, far safer to be on the sidewalk where I live.

[dllthomas]

You're less visible on the sidewalk than in a lane, and you pose a threat to others. I'd almost go so far as to say, "Cycle where you're supposed to, or don't cycle." Moving in unexpected ways in unexpected places is what leads to collisions.

[Silhouette]

While your factual statements are true, and cyclists on sidewalks can certainly be a menace, I don't think it's really tenable to argue that cyclists should always be textbook road users unless you also ensure that everyone driving larger and motorised vehicles also plays by the rules.

I live in a city known for having many cyclists, and there are always tensions between the local cycling population and the authorities about the poor level of law enforcement against dangerous drivers. Of course, there is also a poor level of law enforcement against cyclists doing dumb and illegal things. The difference is that when something goes wrong, it's usually the cyclist who ends up injured or dead, not the motorist.

So while in an ideal world we'd all get along nicely and play by the rules, I don't tend to get angry at cyclists whose choices are illegal but obviously safer (as in, I've read the actual research and current law and/or public policy clearly doesn't promote the safest option, not just doing something that intuitively feels safer but maybe isn't really).

[bottled_poe]

Umm... Perhaps address the actual problem here, which would be poor driving?

[judk]

Indeed:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design

[nailer]

A lot of skaters and kids on scooters and have become injured thanks to the those rubber stoppers. You can't rely on them if you're disabled, because they're not on every corner. I've also read that it's cheaper to give disabled people a full time minder than to run these programmes.

Solutions that start with 'let's change the world' never, ever work. Let's fix screenreaders. And help the blind by analysing what;'s in front of them, rather than changing it.

[collyw]

Give a skater a wall, and they will manage to hurt themselves.

[nailer]

Walls are generally less of a surprise than a random, sometimes concrete coloured, surface.

Also keep in mind scooters (which I added in edit) are also affected - a lot of young kids in big cities scoot rather than walk and they get hurt too.

[Isofarro]

"Solutions that start with 'let's change the world' never, ever work. Let's fix screenreaders. And help the blind by analysing what;'s in front of them, rather than changing it."

It's not screenreaders that are the problem, its the quality of the content (in terms of structure, perceivability, operability, usability and robustness). In short, GIGO. The garbage input is where the fix is needed, not the tool that's attempting to treat it as actual quality.

The "fix the screen readers" argument is a terribly terribly deep rabbit hole, requiring pretty much world-changing technologies: solving artificial intelligence, solving computer vision, teaching computers empathy, emotion, spatial relativity and context, cultural awareness, interpretation of imagery, spot and be able to translate visual cues... so many many deeply technical problems to solve.

In the choice between "fixing screenreaders" and web developers doing their jobs properly, the latter is a low hanging fruit in comparison. I assume teaching web developers basic skills is easier than teaching computers how to think and perceive (though, I recognise some people are beyond help). It takes a year to teach a web developer professional web development, it's been 60-odd years and they haven't seriously cracked artificial intelligence yet.

[im3w1l]

Responding to your 3rd paragraph. I think you are too pessimistic. Solving the general case probably is that hard. But working "well enough", "most of the time" probably isn't. I'd think a clever selection of hacks, combined with a knowledge of the most common patterns in which websites are designed go a very long way.

Afaik googlebot does things like this already. It detects hidden elements to prevent blackhat seo for instance.

[nailer]

There was a period not too long ago where people were encouraged to build web apps without any behavior because screenreaders couldn't run JavaScript.

Now nearly all screenreaders can run JavaScript. The thousands of hours spent, for a 0.5% (grossly overestimating) solution, are completely and utterly wasted.

What specifically else is wrong? What wouldn't be solved better be actually fixing what screenreaders can't see, rather than trying to fix All Websites Ever Made?

[Isofarro]

"Now nearly all screenreaders can run JavaScript."

Saying all screen readers can run JavaScript is like saying all graphics cards can run JavaScript. Screenreaders don't run JavaScript. Screenreaders are not web browsers. A Screenreader is an audio interface on top of an operating system. It's the web browser that runs JavaScript, not the screenreader.

I know what you are attempting to convey, despite the factual incorrectness, and the way in which you describe it. But these are tougher problems to solve in a generic way - it requires expertise on the subject matter under discussion.

I took a sentence of words at their face value, recognised the incorrectness of your statement. Applied a context of accessibility to the statement, and discovered what your intended message was (which was quite different to the statement you used).

Human beings do this all the time. A computer would interpret your statement and say it is false. A human can divine the essence of the message without being blocked by an obviously false statement, a human can look past that and assess the statement in context.

I realise, as a human, your original statement is either intellectually lazy, or misinformed (perhaps you meant to say speech browser?). You either know how screen readers work and worded the statement badly. Or you have no idea how screen readers work, and don't actually realise your statement is factually incorrect.

So I can perceive the content of your statement: Screenreaders have the ability to deal with a dynamically updating DOM. That is a step forward, but minuscule in overcoming the typical accessibility problems present for screenreader users on the web.

"What specifically else is wrong?"

"What wouldn't be solved better be actually fixing what screenreaders can't see"

Your question is misleading. It assumes or implies that all serious accessibility issues can be fixed/addressed by a screenreader. Yes, it would be fantastic when every accessibility problem is thoroughly alleviated by a screenreader. But with today's technology it can't, not even in another 10 years. Many accessibility issues have to do with content gleaned indirectly or implied. It's a human trait of communication.

It's the difference between:

* "A red triangle"

* "Danger"

* "This side is up"

* "Go this way"

* "North"

The use of images is a serious accessibility barrier for blind people. It is not sufficient (or perhaps misleading) to just describe the image in isolation. An image conveys more information than the objects/concepts in the image. The meaningful content of an image can change as the context in which the image is used changes.

Perceiving contextually relevant content from an image - that is something blind people can't do because they are blind. It is also something that's awfully tough for a computer to do reliably. And it's something that a web developer can do in five minutes by authoring an appropriate text equivalent (in an alt attribute of an image).

The big accessibility issues aren't simple "let's parse the HTML, CSS and JavaScript", they come down to using context, visual cues, audio cues, spatial cues, implied meanings, intonation, cultural identification, localisation normalisation - a wide variety of human-based factors to extract the necessary contextual meaning.

Being able to extract the appropriate text-equivalents for an image is something that's trivial for a content writer to do - as the content creator. And exceedingly tough to do without a visual acuity, a visual acuity that computers are far from achieving.

And that's just one single accessibility issue: text-equivalents for images. If you fix that, you'll have the appreciation of millions of people instantly, a substantially accessibility barrier will disappear overnight. I strongly encourage you, if you think this is an easily solvable problem, to just solve it, or help the experts solve it. Seriously. Please.

[lilsunnybee]

I can't imagine what "these programmes" you're referring to could be that could possibly be cheaper than providing full-time personal assistants to every visually impaired person in your area. The statement sounds pretty unlikely, and really demands a very reliable source, but you've provided none for support.

Beyond that though, even if this were true, the added expense alone is not enough to justify treating people with disabilities as second-class citizens, who have to be "minded" rather than allowed to freely navigate their own communities, "because it's a bit cheaper that way!"

[Isofarro]

"the added expense alone is not enough to justify treating people with disabilities as second-class citizens, who have to be "minded" rather than allowed to freely navigate their own communities, "because it's a bit cheaper that way!""

Reminds me of a Better Off Ted episode resolution: http://www.tv.com/shows/better-off-ted/racial-sensitivity-12...

[nailer]

> I can't imagine what "these programmes" you're referring to could be that could possibly be cheaper than providing full-time personal assistants to every visually impaired person in your area.

Jackhammering, buying tactile surfaces, installing tactile surfaces, having a safety inspector, stopping traffic. I read this from a source, but it's my wedding anniversary and I'd rather not go into too much effort finding it right now.

For your second comment: having full time assistants is a first class experience and saves money: having inconsistent tactile surfaces is a second class experience and does not.

You are advocating for disabled people to have a second class experience, which is shameful.

[mikeash]

Which "these programmes" are you referring to?

[nailer]

Jackhammering street concerns and installing rubber bits with a texture that said to help the blind.

[djur]

Could you provide a link? I've never seen rubber bits added to a sidewalk before.

[pmontra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactile_paving

[mikeash]

Isn't the cost essentially zero if you just install them when you're doing other work?

[nailer]

Depends on the price of the rubber bits or the moulds for the concrete ones.

[Sanddancer]

Concrete molds for curbs are built in-situ to deal with the situation of that particular curb, and the rubber bits are at most $200, so the cost really is fairly negligible.