When Accessibility Gets Labeled Wasteful
I generally agree that shaming people for choosing lazy&#x2F;convenient options is bad. Quality of life and convenience should be a primary design factor, unless it&#x27;s shown to be disastrously bad in some other respect.<p>Honest question for disability supporters though: Would you support a 1% tax on every able-bodied person, with the proceeds used to help disabled people better live their lives?<p>Because that&#x27;s essentially the argument that the article is making in a lot of ways. Every time you make accessibility a design goal in a technology&#x2F;product&#x2F;building&#x2F;service, it makes the design&#x2F;production more complicated than it otherwise would be. It bloats the product spec. Makes the implementation more complex, which in turn makes it harder to understand and maintain in the future. It makes the manufacturing more onerous. In all these ways, when going out of your way to make something more accessible-friendly, it ends up taxing every single person who doesn&#x27;t use or need those features.<p>Hence my question above. Similar to forcing&#x2F;shaming companies into making their products disabled-friendly, would you support a X% tax on every single able-bodied person, with the proceeds used to better help all disabled people? And if yes, what do you think is a reasonable limit on X?