HN user

rpd9803

45 karma
Posts0
Comments51
View on HN
No posts found.

Ah the fallacy of 'universal accessibility'

Not everything done in the name of accesility makes it accessible to all, nor does accessibility have a necessary correlation with 'good design'.

That's not to say we should't strive for both and require accesible solutions, but let's not pretend putting lightswitches 40" from the floor or those bumpy concrete pads in grocery store parking lots are better for everyone.

The reason JAWS and Voiceover are to widely used is not because no one else has tried.

I'd reckon 90% of 'accessiblity' software was written by a sighted or hearing dev that thought they had an idea that would be 'helpful'.

I mean, I think there is a signifigant portion of video game players that could have told you Starfield and RedFall would underwhelm.. Bethesda players clearly want, nay are begging for more Elder Scrolls and Fallout main line games.

I know Bethesda wanted a new IP, but literally their audience was begging them to make the stuff they want to play faster and it seems like they ignored it, at their peril.

Agree on everything else, just salty at Bethesda for dropping the ball. I'd also add Valve to the list somewhere as another weird example because they make far too much money distributing games to have as strong an appetite for making them despite a pretty good track record (The hardware... maybe another story)

I mean, except if they are clearly copying works they don't have copyright to, they are violating the law and effectively taking some amount of money out of the pocket of authors and rights holders. You can try and demand people use more "neutral" language to disucss copyright violations, but good luck.

I hope you never know the misfortune of having assets devalued by people that feel they don't need to operate within the boundaries of the rules.

GPL code is open source but what you do with it also needs to be open source as a condition of its use. Will CoPilot inform developers if suddenly the code suggested requires them to re-license their software?

Some trivia: CC0 is a public domain declaration.. at least in the US. There is no process by which an author can make their works public domain, CC0 is just a (weak) promise that the copyright holder will treat the work as if it were public domain.

Based on this comment, you may not understand what the GPL's purpose actually is, because it is NOT simply for the promoting sharing and remixing. The GPL is for ensuring that code, and its derivatives, are all able to be shared and remixed in perpetuity. the biggest (imo) difference between GPL and MIT/BSD licenses is that you CAN NOT use GPL'd code in a non-GPL* codebase. (*or GPL-compatible license)