Maybe in some cases. I think it's a creativity issue. In an ideal world the utility can be preserved or increased, with the use of an innovation that improves significantly the life of the functionally varied, with secondary effect of reducing for example cognitive strain on the original user. There may challenges in mindset, funding, time, organisation, lack of understanding or empathy, and so on, for this to be reality. But I would argue that there is a flow of unforeseen benefit from the user that requires a feature, to users that don't require a feature but reduces time and energy spent on getting something done just because the path is shorter, easier, friendlier. Personally I have used many accessibility features as part of small productivity hacks. I also think the study of for example UI accessibility doesn't only apply to the functionally varied but also makes life easier for any user.
If you ignore all the cases where a statement is contradicted, any statement appears true.
Ultimately the visual medium permits random access 2D representations of information that just aren't viable in the sequential-access 1D medium of speech / small screens.
Sometimes accessibility improvements are to general benefit, but this isn't universally true.
You claim utility first and accessibility as first principle removes utility.
Removes utility for who? Accessibility is all about utility for the groups who need it the most. You can have normal excel and an excel that uses sound for blind people on the side. It's not one or the other, and the other in this case also puts utility first for the people it applies to. And what you learn from that can make normal excel better too.
> Accessibility is all about utility for the groups who need it the most
Do some groups really need utility more than others? This seems to contradict the idea of accessibility in general.
> You can have normal excel and an excel that uses sound for blind people on the side. It's not one or the other, and the other in this case also puts utility first for the people it applies to.
It really is one or the other. You cannot represent an effectively infinite 2 dimensional grid in speech. This is impossible because speech is one dimensional. This 2d grid is not accidental to excel, it's at the core of its utility.
Some people need help and it's a positive sum game to help.
You have misconstrued me.
>Do some groups need really utility more than others?
Some people have a lot of utility at hand, and some people who have no utility at all, we can do some stuff so they also can use a tool.
>It really is one or the other. You cannot represent..
The 2d grid is stored in computer memory. You don't need speech to store it. Speech is just a communication medium. A lot of accessibility is just altering the communication medium. It has columns, rows, things that are described with words. You can index into the grid. It is true that sight is a good thing, but your total refusal to provide features to those with alternate needs is ableist. It doesn't matter if the visual component is the original source and I agree excel couldn't have been created without sight. Clay tablet accounting couldn't be created without sight. Doesn't mean you can't use other senses when something has been created. Why the refusal to share? It's pointless not to share. An ending note: Leonhard Euler was rather productive while blind.
> Some people have a lot of utility at hand, and some people who have no utility at all, we can do some stuff so they also can use a tool.
Right, but the point is that we all need the same utility, right? Some people may presently have less utility available, but surely the goal is for the utility to be the same?
> The 2d grid is stored in computer memory. You don't need speech to store it. Speech is just a communication medium. A lot of accessibility is just altering the communication medium. It has columns, rows, things that are described with words. You can index into the grid. It is true that sight is a good thing, but your total refusal to provide features to those with alternate needs is ableist. It doesn't matter if the visual component is the original source and I agree excel couldn't have been created without sight. Clay tablet accounting couldn't be created without sight. Doesn't mean you can't use other senses when something has been created. Why the refusal to share? It's pointless not to share. An ending note: Leonhard Euler was rather productive while blind.
Enough allusions to a nebulous solution that must surely somehow exist. How would you represent Excel to a user that is not sighted? A spreadsheet is not just a table, it's tables within tables. The data is scattered in tables around the sheet and inconsistently surrounded by areas of empty cells, the data is ad-hoc and user created and can not be assumed to have any standard headings or type annotations as many spreadsheets just don't. Unrelated tables may also be adjacent to each other within the sheet. A row of empty cells may be semantically meaningful, or just the space between two different tables. There may or may not be headings or column labels. Any cell may be represented both as a formula and a value. Formulas may refer to any cell both within the sheet and within other sheets in the workbook. It's as truest digital equivalent of unstructured writing with pencil on a blank sheet of paper.
Many of the things that make this a complete accessibility nightmare are the same things that makes it an extremely versatile and high-utility tool for abled people. The complete lack of structure and freedom to invent completely ad-hoc work flows that may or may not resemble structured data is exactly what makes it so incredibly powerful.
My entire point I've been trying to make is that there is an inherent conflict here. Pretending like it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.
>Enough allusions to a nebulous solution that must surely somehow exist. How would you represent Excel to a user that is not sighted?
A voice presents the information structurally top-down recursively as needed. That's it. Braille displays may also be used. If the excel is unstructured, an inclusive organization makes sure such files are documented. Soon an LLM may describe the structure. And don't underestimate peoples intelligence if they happen to be alone without documentation, structure can be extrapolated. Let's not pretend things are impossible that aren't. A simple screen reader gets a lot done here.
>surely the goal is for the utility to be the same?
Not for the methods to be the same, the goal is for the output to be the same. To consider the majority's way of doing things the correct way is sort of discriminatory. To cram people with different needs into an existing framework doesn't always work, rather you have to meet their needs so they can provide the same value in alternative ways.
I like your point excellent job you're right of course it's a difficult problem. I won't be able to reply any longer. I hope you may generalize an appreciation of the willpower of people with functional variations and not try and fit them in a mold rather give them alternative interfaces that they need to produce the same results
