Let's be realistic, accessibility — whether you like it or not — is an edge case. This is also why as you said, the amount of people working on it is low.
It is really not the limiting factor in Linux desktop adoption. The inherent fragmentation and HW compatibility issues are much more pertinent.
Buy the wrong laptop, and you have to fight with X, wayland and Nvidia graphics like a terminally inclined caveman in danger
Not only is accessibility important in and of itself, but starting with a clean, accessible base implies standardization and interop, and makes things a lot easier to automate and extend.
Things that challenge accessibility plugins challenge any plugins. Steps away from accessibility are always steps towards lock-in.
> The inherent fragmentation and HW compatibility issues are much more pertinent.
But you seem to desire this. Don't buy the wrong laptop if you like lock-in; Apple and MS aren't making their OS compatible with your every hardware whim. Or learn how to reverse-engineer and write drivers.
> Let's be realistic, accessibility — whether you like it or not — is an edge case.
Spoken like a true techbro. This attitude is so incredibly destructive. Technology is how we mediate our lives, cutting a very large number of citizens out of that is simply wrong, even if 'the numbers just aren't there' (and they are!).
Not putting the focus in accessibility is not the same as cutting those people off. I think I get your point, really, because someone who needs this kind of aid and doesn't get it does definitely feel cut off and usage of everyday devices becomes and everyday battle. We are not going to disagree there.
But surely there can be a point in which there are larger problems than that Linux reached 5% adoption this year in the US:
That's better than what it was. It's also not a whole lot. But you must understand, the more people use Linux, the better it becomes. Even if value accessibility over other matters, increasing the market share surely will increase the amount of people working on accessibility too.
That whole way of thinking isn't appropriate. 5% is an insane number of people, when you are that large these things are no longer optional. The fact that we have an effective tech duopoly is not important at all. If the market were split between 20 5% players they too would have to ensure that their devices are accessible to all comers. The fact that 95% is split between two parties does nothing to change the responsibilities of a 5% player.
>That whole way of thinking isn't appropriate. 5% is an insane number of people, when you are that large these things are no longer optional.
And hardware compatibility issues are? The fact that orders of magnitude more people don't use Linux at all, disabled or not, because of lacking features or usability is optional?
If 5% of people is an insane number of people, surely usability for them all is more important than for a fraction of that? And again, this is not a product sold by a corporation. Leave features behind and adoption goes down, then you get no accessibility features at all. If you want more accessibility features, you want more developers. For that you want more usage.
Hardware compatibility issues are just a distraction in this discussion. You can do both. If all of the hardware compatibility issues would be resolved there would be some other excuse.
The entirety of this discussion has been about what should be prioritised in order to increase Linux adoption. You cannot do everything together all at once, especially with the limited resources of open source.
Since you're such a noble white knight, why don't you code up those accessibility features you think are the most important missing part ? I'll wait.
Did I advocate for lack of accessibility features ? I just pointed out that in this context there are things far higher in the priority list. Especially given the fact that there are accessibility features, just not on par with windows.
Do you seriously believe that improving accessibility would have a higher impact in Linux adoption than improving robustness and hardware compatibility ?
> Do you seriously believe that improving accessibility would have a higher impact in Linux adoption than improving robustness and hardware compatibility ?
Yes, absolutely. Linux is plenty robust and has lots of hardware that you can use today. The reasons people end up not using it are:
- Microsoft
- Lack of favorite application 'x' (see: Microsoft)
- Difficult to use (unfamiliarity plays a role here)
So yes, accessibility is a key factor, and not just for the people that have challenging bodies.
Well then we simply disagree. I would suggest to look up negative criticism for linux online (e.g. "linux sucks site:reddit.com" etc).
It is flooded by complaints about HW incompatibilities, HW acceleration not working etc. Haven't been able to find complaints about accessibility.
Furthermore, what is the percentage of visually impaired people in the US and what is the percentage of linux desktop users ? The numbers speak for themselves.
Uh... Yes, yes we do. You do realize that adding accessibility features (and I mean actually high quality versions of said features) helps everybody, right? It isn't a low-priority item. To pretend like it is just shows your ignorance.
It is really not the limiting factor in Linux desktop adoption. The inherent fragmentation and HW compatibility issues are much more pertinent.
Buy the wrong laptop, and you have to fight with X, wayland and Nvidia graphics like a terminally inclined caveman in danger