Brian, You seem intent on characterizing anyone who disagrees with you as claiming the victim card. You write:
What I do have a problem with is certain people acting like it's OK to hold the false belief that Captchas were a targeted attack on accessibility and the blind. They weren't, they just had that as a very nasty side effect. The companies had a choice to make based upon the technology available at the time, and if it fixed their major issue, and it did, while screwing over a tiny fraction of their customer base, which it did, any sane person knows how the math goes with that one and that it's the math, and nothing else, that was the primary consideration. It wasn't about you, and treating it as though it was isn't doing anyone any favors. Knowing the difference between being attacked, and being collateral damage, gives one perspective. My attitude has to do with addressing reality and stepping outside one's own bubble, which some seem incapable of doing. Back to me. Who on this list claimed the CAPTCHA solution was targeted at blind people? I don’t recall reading any such post. The question isn’t about targeting. It does have more to do with the small market issue that Soronel brings up. this is a kind of economic democracy argument that makes undeniable practical sense. However, the U.S. Constitution recognized the need to balance the interests of minorities even in a country where the majority rules. This was the premise of the civil rights campaigns of the fifties all the way to the gay rights transformation we’ve witnessed in this generation. Many advocates are working from this foundation to ensure equal access for disabled people. Equal access includes simultaneous access as non-disabled people when it comes to technology. I don’t agree with Soronel, but I respect the integrity of his argument. You set up the straw man of disabled people who like being victims. Not good. From: Brian Vogel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 10:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Improving my teaching approach and/or sensitivity On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:54 pm, Soronel Haetir <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: They solved an actual problem and sad to say the slice of potential customers unable to deal with them is small enough that I can well see companies having better things to focus on. Companies don't _owe_ us anything. And even if the companies do "owe you something," Captchas, as I already pointed out, at length, came into existence to address a pressing and immediate problem that was getting worse and worse and worse. It was far more important to stop it, as dead as possible, and quickly, than anything else. I have no problem with people complaining about Captchas, advocating for changes, etc. That's been done and those issues have been identified and registered. The creation of the reCaptcha is a direct result. What I do have a problem with is certain people acting like it's OK to hold the false belief that Captchas were a targeted attack on accessibility and the blind. They weren't, they just had that as a very nasty side effect. The companies had a choice to make based upon the technology available at the time, and if it fixed their major issue, and it did, while screwing over a tiny fraction of their customer base, which it did, any sane person knows how the math goes with that one and that it's the math, and nothing else, that was the primary consideration. It wasn't about you, and treating it as though it was isn't doing anyone any favors. Knowing the difference between being attacked, and being collateral damage, gives one perspective. My attitude has to do with addressing reality and stepping outside one's own bubble, which some seem incapable of doing.
