Re: pissed off about accessibility guides
How do you know that's exactly what they were implying? At the moment I see some projection, I guess you could call it, the problem with the internet is that we can read text and imply whatever meaning we want to it.
I can understand how that seems to be the case, but its because its contextually built. I can't think of a specific example on the top of my head but its kind of like how a specific term is used to not specify a particular issue so that it can be inclusive, but it's particularly targeting - kind of like how visual impairment is preferred over blindness.
But think also how "visually impaired" causes issues because it assumes that all kinds of blindness are the same. Like, some people are totally blind (which is one reason a lot of my assumptions were initially wrong about blind people), but then there are people with varying degrees of vision loss, visual impairment, or even physical conditions that cause unique situations like a lack of a lens, or extreme cross-eyedness. But, the assumption IS specifically blindness. You couldn't really argue that visual impairment is almost always about blindness specifically, even though it can refer to other things.
In this case, the reason why it codifies PTSD is because unlike most other conditions PTSD is notorious for a pop psychology myth where basically PTSD people can't manage their emotions and have outbursts caused by their flash backs. Autistic people also have trouble managing their emotions, but it has a similar condescending effect.
I should point out that almost everyone I know who has PTSD who saw this immediately knew it was codifying PTSD. And all of them agreed that content warnings weren't the problem, it was codifying them as an accessibility feature and miseducating people about how PTSD presents itself.
I still don't understand why you're mad at naughty dog, do you know it was just one guy who worked on the blind accessibility stuff?
I'm not 100% certain but I haven't seen any evidence for them actually hiring a blind person for major development work.
Let them take all the credit they're going to take, it won't affect me at all, I think you should try calming down and just letting things be as they are, change what you can yes but don't let things that have already happened affect you.
I mean I feel you. I know it won't effect you. But it just makes me angry. Why? Because like, we literally are better than this shit and we just have to take what comes our way. I know some people are okay with that but I'm not. And for me like I stated in the OP its not just because I "want to help blind people", its because I have real accessibility problems too.
I think part of it too though is like I stated, I have a personality that really gets mad about stuff like this. So obviously its not for everyone.
If you want to change this websites stuff, email the people, i'm sure they have a page but be prepared for them to say they won't change it as this is a generalisation. As far as I know, from that first link; they don't actually mention PTSD or autism, is it perhaps you that is adding those disabilities in your head because you have them?
I doubt it. I dont represent an organization and PTSD, being an invisible disability, often has people talk down to you because they dont actually believe you have it. Like, yeah, that's why I got so angry (I'm sorry for not presenting it properly).
I think its worth pointing out that a lot of the reasons conflicts are emerging in this thread is because of the nature of visible disability, like blindness, vs invisible disability, like PTSD, impacts people; because the way that accessibility is being parsed and worked with impacts different conditions differently.
This also goes back to why I emphasized changing social conditions so much in other threads. I dont know about you but for me I am scared of changing my body more than it already has and I'm extremely scared of systemic abuse against mentally disabled people. Its really bad horrifying shit. I have friends who have gone through it. And its just like if I didn't have to deal with that and I could be supported in my struggle I wouldn't want to change. And I'm not saying every blind person is like that but I think there is some significant social reasons to why blind people want to be sighted, and we should challenge those social reasons.
This is really important because this is very applicable in the mental health arena because you really can't separate autism from the person, PTSD from the person ect., and I think blindness has a similar effect to some extent. But I don't think blind people should just be forced to stay blind. I think blind people should have options and we should be able to talk about issues surrounding blindness as a whole more openly. And I think blind people should be an active part of that process instead of just saying, well NG did a good job for me. Or something like that.
It made them millions sure, but it cost them millions to put accessibility features in from the ground up. Everybody nowadays wants everything for free, but someone's got to pay.
would be a real shame if that game engine i was working on on the side was open source
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
