Are you asking for every article ever to have a section discussing accessibility?
No. I'm asking that when they complain about how the modern web is "fucked" and web 1.0 was better, they don't try to act like that is an absolute, since that's an opinion that is not widely applicable.
No, thats just the angle that the article wanted to take. Just because it ignores an aspect of something doesn’t mean that its position is moot.
Ignoring part of a topic makes your argument weaker.
Accessibility almost always refers to disabled people, especially in web development. I've never heard anyone in the industry refer to accessibility in any other way, without explicitly making that clear.
If they meant the reading you took from it, that's even worse and my point is even more pertinent.
Accessibility wasn’t the main topic discussed in the article
That's part of the problem. All these rants about the glory of Web 1.0 are ignoring the fact that Web 1.0 wasn't usable for anybody with accessibility issues and the modern web is better for them. A tiny acknowledgement at the bottom of their rant shows how they value accessibility lower than all of their other concerns.
If Mozilla open sourced it years ago like they promised, it could be picked up by someone else.
I think you're right that the best response is no response, but the protests do have an effect beside driving traffic. Investors won't want to be involved in a company at war with its userbase, so if protests are loud and long enough it could mess us reddits IPO plans. So for the users who just aren't ready to give up reddit, spamming protest comments is probably their best bet.
Not really. There was a recent article that came out that said tumblr is still losing money. I don't see them spending time and money on something that doesn't have a direct monetization strategy, especially since their userbase isn't actually asking for ActivityPub
That looks great. What are some resources I can use to learn how to do this?
Yea it could definitely work for those but I don't think it's limited to those.
Because what use would a bodega be on it’s own? They aren’t large enough to have the inventory to replace a supermarket.
I didn't mean the store would have to be a bodega; that was just an example of a small store sustaining itself with that size customer base. I meant that it could be a small grocery store, one that doesn't qualify as a supermarket. And like I said, if we're talking about a whole district, there are multiple buildings available so you don't have to get everything from one store. You could have a butcher in one building, a produce shop across the street, the grocery store with just nonperishables beside that, etc.
These kinds of commercial districts with nothing but office buildings are terrible sad places to be. I’m not sure why anyone would want to live in such a depressing place.
Because they don't have many other options. We're talking about affordable housing, which is needed by people who are increasingly getting priced out of non-depressing areas. And areas like what I'm describing, with small, locally owned stores colocated with housing with shared ammenities can be incredibly vibrant communities. You could even close off the interior roads and make something like the superblock concept that's been growing (I've heard about it the most in relation to neighborhoods in Spain).
Say you get 100 apartments out of it, you can’t run a supermarket on 100 customers.
Why does it have to be a supermarket, though? From what I've heard, New York City has bodegas everywhere and those are small convenience stores that have similarly sized customer bases. If the bottom floor is a small market, they have a nearly guaranteed 100 customers. And in your hypothetical commercial district, there would be more than one unused office building so more opportunity for mixed-use space.
We're talking about converting unused office space into affordable housing, though. Charging half the rent would qualify it as affordable housing and is still better than no income from an unused building.
my original point was that the main idea of the article down plays the accessibility gains of the modern web. Your reading was that the author meant a different definition of accessibility and not A11y, which would mean the author didn't just down play it, they completely ignored it. The author is complaining that the modern web is awful, while ignoring the huge gains for people who need these accessibility features and how awful web 1.0 was for them