

Facebook hates the handicapped? - Exoseq
http://bogon-flux.blogspot.com/2012/01/facebook-hates-handicapped.html

======
lizzard
That's really too bad.

So was the Gaming Simplifier mainly meant for or used by people with
disabilities? Or was it meant to get around various interfaces meant to get
extra pageview "clicks", and it ended up being amazingly useful for particular
people with disabilities?

It can be pretty interesting to look at people with disabilities' use of
software and user interfaces as use cases. Making software good for PWD to use
can result in better software all around, the way curb cuts for wheelchairs
are also great for people with strollers or skateboards, or the way thick-grip
utensils originally developed for people with arthritis or Parkinson's are
more ergonomic and easy to use for everyone.

Of course there isn't one way to "be disabled" and different people have
different requirements. But particular environments can be very useful to
particular communities of people with disabilities -- for example, MUDS can be
very accessible to blind and visually impaired people.

Facebook and Facebook developers should try taking a look at this case from
the point of view of making good and useable software. I know... as if that'll
happen!

~~~
eli
I'm not sure it matters, but the primary intent was not to help people with
disabilities. It was closer to a "video game trainer" from the days of yore.

------
zerostar07
Seriously? I don't know who posts these, but this extension, as well as many
"game simplifier" apps have nothing to do with disabled people. Modern
operating systems have great facilities for all kinds of disabilities. No,
this type of apps are cheats used to ruin the gameplay for those that don't
use them, and to piss off game developers.

------
evmar
News protip: when a headline asks a question, the answer is almost certainly
"no".

------
ehutch79
I'm sorry, but perhaps if you have difficulty clicking, perhaps a game who's
entire purpose is to sit there clicking on stuff is not the right game for
you.

------
Exoseq
regardless of the designers intention, it is nonetheless a potential side
effect that such an extension might open up play to a wider audience,
including people with varying levels of ability or impairments.

------
Exoseq
true enough, that is both a more accurate and more humane representation.

------
rkon
Facebook hates anything that makes their ads less effective, which this
extension did by automatically clicking past them. It's clear that Facebook's
priorities have nothing to do woth satisfying users and everything to do with
satisfying advertisers. Why else would they repeatedly make sweeping changes
that are universally despised by users?

~~~
ams6110
As is often stated here, if you are not paying for it, you are the product.

------
GiraffeNecktie
I just wanted to insert a reminder that people are not "handicapped" and they
are certainly never "disabled". However, there are people who have
disabilities.

~~~
Muzza
It's very difficult for someone - even the PC police - to control language.

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
Nobody can control language but over time we can certainly change it to be a
little more respectful, sensitive, accurate and appropriate. Once upon a time,
it was perfectly fine for white people to call black people "nigger" and
"boy". Change happens because people raise the topic for discussion.

~~~
ehutch79
There's a huge gap between making people realize a racist slur is wrong, to
realizing that disabled is wrong when you're telling them 'has disabilities'
is right.

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
Having a disability does not make you disabled. That's not an opinion, that's
just an accurate use of the English language. Telling someone they are
"disabled" when they are perfectly capable of managing their work and their
life, is just sloppy and rude. And yes, it's also a slur.

~~~
Exoseq
While I Agree with giraffe in principle, there is certainly a distinction, as
there are people who are "disabled" due to the nature of their disabilities,
so in this way it is fundamentally different from a racial slur, insofar as it
reflects a matter of degree.

Also, by definition, "having a disability" implies being "disabled" in some
degree.

That said, calling all people with disabilities categorically "disabled",
while lexically and logically correct, does carry a clearly inaccurate and
prejudicial -implication- that a person with a disability is somehow -less
capable-. In this, giraffe is correct, that the use of "disabled" in this way
can easily convey an inaccurate connotation of reduced capability, an thus its
usage in this way is both unenlightened and potentially prejudicial - but I
could hardly put it into the same category as a racial slur, which is clearly
intended to diminish or marginalize.

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
Most of us are "disabled" to some degree (i.e. there's some normal ability
which we completely suck at) but physical disabilities are more obvious and
striking to the casual observer so it's easy and rather lazy for people to
think "he's disabled and I'm not". Whether or not the intention is there, this
still diminishes and marginalizes the person with a physical disability.

