Wow what a weird take. I think it's the same attitude that leads to modern technology being inaccessible to people with disabilities - after all why plan our systems for anything other than "readily accessible technology". If you refuse to use it you're just an asshole, that's your problem, right? If you physically can't use a smartphone because you're blind that's your problem, and not the problem of the idiotic system built so that it can't be accessed in any other way, obviously.

A modern iPhone has all sorts of affordances for people with disabilities - including blind people.

Do you also complain that you can’t use Uber without a cellphone?

Most people in society are more than willing to help those who for whatever reason can’t do for themselves. But are less forgiving for those who won’t

That's beyond ridiculous. A smartphone is by definition a usability nightmare, it's a purely visual design that presents as a featureless slab to a visually impaired user.

It's great it has some accessibility features to enable such users access to some smartphone specific functions, that they can't have in other ways, such as audio directions. But that doesn't mean we should be actively push this audience to smartphones and destroy actual accesibile designs for things that haven't required a smartphone in the past. let alone berate people for failing to get on with the times and embrace the clearly inferior "evolution".

Have you ever used a cell phone the same way blind people do?

Do you think the washers and dryers have brail on them? Do you think cash is easier for blind people?

Ah yes, an iPhone works so the problem is solved, despite the fact that iPhones are a minority of devices out there and in most places they are luxury devices. Android is nowhere near as good when it comes to accessibility and that's what majority of devices are.

>>Do you also complain that you can’t use Uber without a cellphone?

I do actually, it's one of the major problems with Uber in my opinion, and that's why a lot of people still stick to local taxi companies that you can just call. But Uber is generally completely shit for accessibility, where law forces local taxis to be accessible Uber usually does their usual bullshit of skirting these regulations and saying absolutely crazy things like "if there is demand for wheelchair accessible taxis then the market will respond".

>>But are less forgiving for those who won’t

Who won't what? I don't understand what you're alluding to.

I’m in NYC right this second at the US Tennis Open. You can order Uber WAV - Wheelchair Accessibility Vehicle.

If you choose to use much less convenient taxis instead of an Uber because of a refusal to use cellphones that’s on you.

> despite the fact that iPhones are a minority of devices out there and in most places they are luxury devices

iPhones are big a minority in the US - where the college is located.

And Google not having accessibility options as good as the iPhone sounds like someone needs to be suing Google under the ADA.

But do you really think blind people are not buying devices that actually work for them?

>>You can order Uber WAV - Wheelchair Accessibility Vehicle.

That's cool - wish Uber would have that option worldwide.

>>If you choose to use much less convenient taxis instead of an Uber because of a refusal to use cellphones that’s on you

If you think my message is about refusal rather than physical impossibility of using a smartphone, that one is on you I'm afraid.

>>And Google not having accessibility options as good as the iPhone sounds like someone needs to be suing Google under the ADA.

I don't live in the US, I don't know what ADA is.

>>But do you really think blind people are not buying devices that actually work for them?

I know some blind people and they are all on government benefits and way too poor to afford an iPhone. They all have those "old people" mobiles with huge buttons and braille on them. A modern smartphone is both out of reach financially and as far as I understand it just doesn't work for someone who is completely blind.

I think taxis in NYC are much more convenient than ubers. No wait, no need to fiddle with my phone or worry about whether it’s going to die, can pay in cash or card.

I always laugh when I see people standing on the side of the road staring first at their phone and then out into traffic as they wait for an uber to show up, and meanwhile at least five taxis have gone by that they could have hailed on the spot.

I’m just leaving NYC right now. We went between the boroughs and everywhere else using public transit. I’ve never used public transit in my life. But even I could navigate public transit using the Apple Maps app. I had no need for Uber.

We were here for the US Tennis open.

Yeah most of the time the subways and busses are the way to go! Taxis are great for late at night when only the late trains are running, or when you’re in a hurry and in an inconvenient spot to catch a train.

Hope you enjoyed your time in the city!

> Do you also complain that you can’t use Uber without a cellphone?

I don't hear it (the harshness of responses like yours it would engender might have something to do with it), but I don't see anything wrong with the complaint. I can make HTTP requests from my laptop.

Uber's smartphone requirement is an unnecessary one.

As an illustration of the requirement not being necessary, you can use Lyft (for cars only, I think) via a browser at ride.lyft.com.

Outside of questions of accessibility, having web-based access is also very useful for unexpected problems: I think people often have many ways of accessing the web, but usually only one smartphone. My partner recently needed to get to a train station when an OS bug suddenly stopped most apps from working on her phone; being able to use her laptop to call a car was extremely helpful.

Comparing a smartphone to a hat is like comparing a Tesla to a sock. It doesn't illuminate the conversation at all, it's a straw-man in the extreme.

Some people don't want smartphones. Some people can't get hold of them. They are both getting locked out of basic societal functions.

Dude, come on. You can surely see where this line of argument leads. Are you seriously defending a society that continually and arbitrarily raises the barriers to accessing services?

On what criteria are those barriers raised? Those decisions are being outsourced by states -- which (democratic) societies elect to act in their best interests -- to monopolies that have none of those responsibilities. In fact, as your comments illustrate, market pressure and competition provide neat justifications to avoid those responsibilities. They lead to a race to the bottom, not the top.

It’s called progress. You can always become Amish. You make the choice - you suffer the consequences of your choice.

If you can’t for some reason use a smart phone, then yes the college should offer assistance just like most colleges offer assistance for people with disabilities.

Progress implies society is becoming better, more equitable, and a heathier environment to live in. O don't see how mandating smartphone ownership works towards any of those.

Limiting access to services that were previously available is certainly not progress.

> readily accessible technology

I think I should remind everyone that scooters are actually amusement rides, just like coffee-to-go (“Imagine yourself as part of those laughing young people wearing bright clothes!”). The city won't grind to a halt if they disappear. They are much more expensive than general transport, and that's the reason they spread like wildfire across the world: there is enough money in there to win officials' hearts (unlike slow and expensive city projects that never satisfy everyone). And, yes, enough money to pay IT teams and loud-mouthed evangelists, too.