PLEX, this last week pushed out changes to its ROKU users (I am one). That made using PLEX nearly impossible for some people. Light and Dark gray color palate. White text on light gray background, to the point of the PLEX 1/4 screen height logo and spinning-working throbber being lost on the background.
So war ensues... See Plex.tv support forums if you must.
My question to you all, "What is TECH's responsibility to the Handicapped?".
Should good TECH also have a backdoor method allowing those with usability issues to still use the product, when TECH changes directions? What about lifetime pre-paid services that are now unusable? Should there be immediate return of funds, so we can buy the second best solution (now the best choice for us)? Should any change be signed off by a third party auditor to insure continued usability?
So again, asked differently, what is TECH's moral responsibility?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 18 2018, @01:35AM (2 children)
More properly, you should be asking, "What moral responsibility do individuals who work in tech have?"
Given that corporations have no morality and no goal other than to enrich themselves and their investors/stockholders. for corporations your question is moot.
Morality is only relevant to individuals. Individuals make moral choices. Because morality is inherently an individual thing. There are those who claim to follow a common moral code, but that's disingenuous. All moral choices are individual ones.
As to the question you should have asked, that's a good question. One might hope that individuals recognize the value in making their products/services accessible. However, all too often people ignore the moral questions and focus on more material issues.
What's more, if those who are in control of a particular product/project/service make (in your mind) questionable moral judgements, those working on such a product may not have any say about it.
Given the variability of both moral codes and how individuals hew to those codes, I posit that morality is a poor mechanism for incentivizing corporations (with no morality) and those who work on such products (variability of moral codes/adhesion to such codes) to support accessibility or any other feature(s).
I'd say that appealing to the self-interest of those involved might be more effective.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @01:43AM (1 child)
Corporations are people too, you know... [wikipedia.org] They should be held to the same standard. After all, with the same rights, come the same responsibilities...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 18 2018, @03:38AM