> Suggesting accessible software is a human right? You have to know how silly that looks compared to the list of other things that qualify as human rights.
I'd argue that what's truly silly is refusing to recognise that software/the web is becoming (if not has already become) as much core global infrastructure as physical equivalents are. We can't push for and actively build an increasingly online world and then plug our ears and pretend that the accessibility of online spaces isn't as important as the accessibility of physical ones.
Then go ahead and make the argument! I'd love to see how you juxtaposition "the right to not be tortured" or "the right to not be enslaved" next to "the right to be able to use Dreebly Chat"...
Don't get me wrong. I agree with the OP in their ideals! Software is an increasingly important part of our lives, and accessibility should be taken seriously for any serious venture.
But legislation? Human rights? It's this kind of rhetoric that divides minds and undermines goals. By all means fight for what you think is right! Progress isn't inevitable. But attempting to impose change rather than affect change is the most classic mistake in the book. You must also be young.
> I'd love to see how you juxtaposition "the right to not be tortured" or "the right to not be enslaved" next to "the right to be able to use Dreebly Chat"...
Maybe by actually reading the charter and grasping that not every human right set forth in it necessarily concerns matters as grave as torture and slavery.
In fact, to quote it directly:
- Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (Article 19).
That right is eroded if the media platforms on which the vast majority of people communicate and disseminate information are not accessible to everyone - especially so when literal heads of state have taken to very active participation on said platforms.
- Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (Article 21 (2))
That right is eroded if public services are increasingly gated behind online channels that are not accessible to all. If one can't fill out the online form and then has to resort to a paper filing that might take days or even weeks to be processed, that's not equal access.
- Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (Article 23 (1))
That right is eroded if one's (potential) employers move all their important processes online/into the software realm, behind products that are not accessible to people with disabilities. Yes, if employers are widely making Dreebly Chat (otherwise known as, say, Slack, HipChat, Discord, and so on) an essential work tool, then it's an erosion of disabled people's right to work if Dreebly Chat lacks accessibility.
And those are the more obvious ones from the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights, dated 1948. As I'm quite sure you are aware, the UDHR is and was intended to be the foundation of further articulation of globally-recognised rights and other legal frameworks - including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a human rights instrument that became active in 2008. It goes into interesting detail on how the various articles of the UDHR specifically apply to disabled people.
But I'm quite sure you knew that already.
> But attempting to impose change rather than affect change is the most classic mistake in the book. You must also be young.
And you must also be of that curious class of people that regardless of age believe that legislation and politics are things to clutch pearls over rather than an integral part of society that people directly engage with daily, and then bloviate about how change "should" happen while remaining blind to how it actually does happen (largely through legislative and other political action).
There is some pretty consequential conflation of the difference between "public" and "private" above. I don't have to make my house wheelchair accessible because it's my house. And I'm not violating anyone's human rights by foregoing the above (and neither are you).
Similarly, I'm confused by your example of an employer moving essential services to non-accessible software because your are not blaming Dreebly Chat for making non-accessible software, rather, the employer for choosing to move to a platform that discriminates against its employees. You seem to understand where the blame lies... and it doesn't support your premise.
My critique is certainly levied against legislation, not "other political action". In your haste to make a counter-argument you may have forgotten what you are arguing against.
I'd argue that what's truly silly is refusing to recognise that software/the web is becoming (if not has already become) as much core global infrastructure as physical equivalents are. We can't push for and actively build an increasingly online world and then plug our ears and pretend that the accessibility of online spaces isn't as important as the accessibility of physical ones.