734
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
734 points (98.0% liked)
Bikini Bottom Twitter
3556 readers
14 users here now
Are ya ready kids?!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So a disabled person should be expected to carry a programmable keyboard with them in case they ever encounter a computer in public they want to use? You think a person that has a disability that may only give them one functioning finger should be able to easily plug in a programmable keyboard to a public computer? What if that "one figure functional" isn't even a finger and instead a stick they use with their mouth to type? How easy will it be for them to plug in a custom keyboard they carry?
Should a wheelchair bound disabled person also be expected to carry a wheelchair ramp in case there isn't one installed on a building where they might need to enter?
WHICH individual key sequences? The point of building this into the OS is that any application developer can write an application and know that the operator has full use of the keyboard. If the application developer includes some non-standard multi-key keystroke, the OS can still handle it for the operator with Stickykeys. What you're suggesting is that the disabled person be burdened with programming in each sequence custom in their own keyboard.
Why are you advocating that the disabled should be burdened? What is so horrible about Stickykeys to you that the disabled people should have to go without? If it bothers you so much on your PC, why don't you just disable Stickykeys in a Group Policy?
You are right, but wow, what a reply! I'm going to grab my dust pan and sweep his ashes up from the righteous fire that just consumed him.
Maybe I should apologize. It just seemed like the height of laziness that the idea the poster was communicating was "just because it doesn't help me personally right now, no one should have access to this feature" attitude. This is especially when the function is NOT enabled by default and if it bothers them its so easy to disable completely on a computer they don't want it on.
Its even selfishly. Just because the poster (or the poster's loved one) don't need this function today, they might in the future with injury or old age.
It rubbed me wrong. Perhaps I overacted.
I just love how in this discussion the hypothetical disability immediately settled on “one working finger” and just stayed there.
There’s someone out there with One Working Finger syndrome who feels truly seen today.
I thought that was funny, too. Of course there are neurological conditions that make holding two keys down at the same time difficult, and are much more common, but it was a good example.
I have seven fingers that are currently unemployed so I get it.
Nah. People not thinking of others is really common, and makes life crap for people who aren't 100% average. Doesn't hurt to remind people that not everyone is the same
Don't. You were right to call them out. Like you said, the sticky keys accessibility feature is turned off by default and must be manually activated. Most of the people commenting in this thread didn't know it existed until now.
Besides, disabled people can't just go out and buy new shit every time they need to overcome society's lack of empathy. 20% of disabled Americans live below the poverty line -- i.e. they cannot afford basic necessities like food, shelter, water, clothing, utilities. They're twice as likely to be poor compared to "normal" Americans.
Except I never said sticky keys shouldn't exist. And no, I'm also wasn't saying that literally every disabled person ought to go out and buy a programmable keyboard. So many assumptions in this thread.
Hell, you don't even need fancy group policy, since I think it asks you if you want to keep it on when it activates. They know most people don't need it, so making it easy to customize to fit the owner of the computer is the right move, but accessible by default is also the right move, since someone who needs it might not even be able to turn it on if it were the other way.
Accessibility in computing (and in general but I only know computing in depth) is crazy hard, and super important. Everyone ends up with a disability at some point if they live long enough.
Now, I can picture a system that would be able to make it easier for people by letting them store a configuration profile on a keychain or bracelet or something that uses some manner of proximity communication to share a users input and output preferences to a computer, and maybe some type of Bluetooth fast-pair information if the user does have their own keyboard or input they bring with them, and that would be sweet from both a disability perspective and also for the rest of the user base, since the accessible way is also usually better in general. (It's why you remove snow from wheelchair ramps first, and some buildings don't even bother with external entryway stairs, since everyone can use a ramp, and dual partial ellipse ramps let you put flowers or a water feature in the middle, and it looks quite nice)
You'd have to be careful with privacy considerations to avoid tracking, and it wouldn't let you not be accessible by default, but I could see it being a nice addition.
There was a movement years ago to get folks putting their operating system and configuration on a thumb drive, and then make computers more of a generic commodity. You could stick your drive into any computer, boot from it, and you're good to go. I was kind of sad that that never really went anywhere, though I'm sure it was a cyber security nightmare scenario.
Yeah, I remember that. Definitely not great from a security standpoint, since once you've booted your own OS you can do nearly anything you want with the computer, like patch the firmware to automatically install a rootkit when the system boots.
Not terribly likely, but since a lot of public computers are in libraries and are used by people without home computers to do things like their taxes or online banking, a nasty compromise would hit a lot of people who wouldn't know their identities were stolen for quite a while.
The fix makes it a lot harder for computers to change operating systems dynamically like that, which is a bit of a loss, but ultimately worth it I think.
What I'm picturing would be a lot more like a static file format for sharing that information, without either device having the ability to actually "change" the other directly.
You don't even need a Group Policy to disable sticky keys, you can disable directly from the accessibility menu.
Wow, what a disproportionate and oddly vicious response to a very innocuous suggestion.
Nowhere in my comment did I suggest that sticky keys simply shouldn't exist. I was specifically responding to the OP talking about Ctrl-C/V and suggesting that a programmable keyboard would be a better solution for that, since you can turn 7 keystrokes into 1, since I expect that reducing the number of keystrokes one has to type is probably pretty valuable for someone in this situation. There are a lot of standard keybinds in an OS that could be handled this way. Obviously you can't do this for every keybinds in existence. But again, the OP was talking about standard OS keybinds. Admittedly, I forgot sticky keys are a toggle, so it's not as many keystrokes after the first time, but still, there are common key sequences that would be more challenging to hit, like
Ctrl-Alt-Delete.If someone is trying to use a public computer, by all means, use sticky keys. Again, I never said it shouldn't exist or people should never use it. I was pretty obviously talking about the normal case: using a workstation/laptop at work/home. It's kind of implied when referring to an external keyboard, since you don't usually bring those places. Don't really know why you're talking about public computers.
The rest of your weirdly personal attacks are all against a strawman you've constructed, so I don't really need to address them.
Your post was this:
Your post was one single sentence and I absolutely came away with the idea that you were suggesting that StickyKeys shouldn't exist because you found it a bother. With the responses from others I wasn't alone in my reading of your comment.
It wasn't obvious at all.
You skipped three or four different steps to communicate to the audience about your intent. With your extra explanation, I see where you're coming from where you were focusing on solutioning for one specific example given for a use case of StickyKeys. However, your solutioning was too narrow in assuming the requirements included the disabled operator would only be using hardware they control 100%. There are many times that isn't the case, such as public computers at a public library, computers in a business center at a hotel, or various kiosk-based computers businesses use to collect input for scheduling or surveys. In those cases, the operator doesn't control the hardware at all.