I would say that DEI has sucked a huge amount of oxygen out of the room on accessibility. It's all out of the same budget, but as you can see, most people don't think of accessibility when they think of DEI, they think of race, gender and sexuality.

And out of those, accessibility is the one that has actual measurable metrics and requires expensive technical skill and compromises with non-accessible functions to implement well. Everything else on the list is PR work.

> I would say that DEI has sucked a huge amount of oxygen out of the room on accessibility

Which is a real shame because accessibility features and policies actually make things better and easier for everyone.

One would be objectively wrong, though.

Disabilities come in a diverse variety.

People with disabilities wanted to be included in society.

The goal of the Act was to provide a more equitable society for those people.

It would absolutely be derided as "woke DEI nonsense" if proposed today.

Yes I see you doing this all over the thread italicizing the same words and using them slightly differently, I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove.

ADA predates DEI by a couple decades. Lots of people, including Republicans, support the ADA and support expanding its protections.

This is a pretty standard tactic of partisans when their pet issue becomes unpopular - take something unrelated, or at best tangentially related, and pretend it's related or that that's what they've been advocating for all along.

I don't care if you support the ADA or you don't. I don't care if you support DEI or you don't. But they're different, they've never been related, and any attempt by partisans on the left to lump them together is just trying to reframe the issue as "against DEI == against the ADA" because of course everyone on the right hates disabled people right?

It's called Motte and Bailey fallacy.

False allegations of that are themselves a fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh

> Lots of people, including Republicans, support the ADA and support expanding its protections.

Now, sure. At the time? Same sort of bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac...

Both are rooted in the same concept - that people should have fair opportunity to participate in society even if different in some ways.

Scroll up a couple lines from your link and take a look at the sponsor, who Republicans nominated to be President. So no, your partisan assertion is nonsense.

Tom Harkin? The Democrat?

We're both wrong. I was referring to Dole who was not a sponsor but was a supporter and advocate.

The ADA requires accommodation. E.g. a blind software developer should be given an interview that does not require sight. So a text-only description instead of a figure or sketch would be accomodation. It does not require specific levels of representation. It is not analogous to Meta's former "representation goals".