468
FCC mandates all mobile phones in the US to be compatible with hearing aids
(www.androidauthority.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
468 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
59612 readers
3179 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I never realized how much we hated disabled people until I worked for a hospital/school.
"We".
Try being autistic and not disabled and using smartphones with sweaty hands and tired eyes. And modern UI design in general.
I've been dreaming of a certain legislation for PC user interfaces and the Web since 10 years ago ; in essence that would mandate that everything governmental and commercial should be usable for blind people (because with modern UI\UX I want to close my eyes and pretend I'm blind) with screen readers and Braille terminals.
That legislation would absolutely kill what clueless crowds call "user-friendly UIs", and I would be happy and gleeful, because it wouldn't kill UIs following good old industrial ergonomics.
It would, of course, present a lot of challenges for such a transition.
The UI shitshow today is unbelievable. Low contrast being the "cool" thing. I have great Vision and find it frustrating - I can only imagine what it's like for people with vision issues.
Can’t speak to PC UI, but for the web, “public good” entities and government institutions have to follow ADA guidelines on usability for differently-abled people. Weird, because the law says this but does not get specific on what exactly must be done to be compliant. The gist is that those entities are “supposed to” follow WCAG, although those are only guidelines and not mandates.
I work in healthcare and our org, although we made best effort to make our site accessible for screen readers, color impairment issues, etc, we were still sued (lawsuit was a bit of a shakedown) and are now working to address and remediate each item in the suit with a third party. We want to be fully compliant but as of yet, there isn’t a “set of rules” that we can all look to make these sites compliant (basically just a bunch of suggestions). Weird times we live in.
Same thing over on education. US government entities down to the local level have to comply with WCAG 2.1 by April 2026 iorc, with some exceptions for content created before the cutoff. The exceptions aren't clearly defined which is causing me a bit of a headache.
I mean, I'd love for all of our legacy documents and images to magically get image descriptions and quality OCR, but the archives have a terabyte of images and PDFs. It doesn't help that the ruling uses "archives" to mean "legacy stuff unlikely to be used" and we use "archives" to mean "stuff about the history of the college, which students are encouraged to consult".
Anyways, I'm all for accessibility. It's good. I'm just borrowing worries from tomorrow about implementation.
I just had the thought that some of our documents are handwritten in ye olde handwriting. That will be the biggest pain in the neck to transcribe. (Shout-out to Transkribus for making it suck less, but it'll still need to be proofread). I worry that we'll scan and post fewer of our documents going forward if we have to provide a transcription when we post them.
And by challenges, they mean a handful of multinational Corporations would make slightly less profit for 3-5 years.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Also proper approach to ergonomics pays back in development costs, so probably not even that.
In Ontario, any organization that receives provincial money must reach a certain accessibility level on its website, or risk having its funding removed.
So you want to severely inconvenience the vast majority of people for your own personal gain?
Surely there is a better compromise
That's what they do with walkways, is it not?
Hahaha, right,right.
Making something usable by more people is "severely inconveniencing" someone. 🤦♂️
I, for one, am extremely inconvenienced by not toggling "blind" or "vision impaired" mode in my OS or browser. The existance of a high contrast mode also offends me. The thought that websites might be navigable using speech readers keeps me up at night.