> I don’t need a stair-climbing wheelchair that costs $30,000 and requires a maintenance crew. I need better doorknobs and/or a ramp. But a ramp is boring. You can't make investors have a hard on for a ramp that doesn't connect to the cloud. You can’t give a TED Talk about a ramp. You can’t get venture capital funding for a slightly wider doorframe.

▲

nicbou a day ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of problems are like that. They don't require anything fancy, just regulation, a budget or regular maintenance.

▲

TulliusCicero a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's a really cynical way to attack people who are at least sort of trying to help.

And obviously the inventions of "a ramp" and "slightly wider door" already exist; those aren't a matter of invention, they're a matter of regulations and enforcement.

▲

hamdingers a day ago | parent | next [-]

Trying to help does not give you a free pass. Pushing a wheelchair user up a ramp without asking their permission first is both "trying to help" and inconsiderate (and scary and dangerous).

Before inventing a more advanced stair climbing wheelchair, you should ask a few wheelchair users if stairs are really the issue they need solving.

	▲	burningChrome a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		THIS. I've seen visually impaired and wheelchair users have more issues with elevators than I have with not having proper ramps. Although I have seen several wheelchair bound accessibility experts invited to give talks and there's no ramp or accessible way for them to access the stage where they're giving a talk about. . . . . accessibility.
	▲	TulliusCicero a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's a pretty ridiculous analogy. Simply inventing something doesn't force the invention onto anyone.

▲

nancyminusone a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The articles premise seems to say clearly "you arent helping". The thought counts, yes, but in ignoring feedback it becomes arrogance.

▲

LorenPechtel a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And sometimes seriously non-trivial.

When there is a substantial elevation difference you need a lot of ramp--which needs a lot of space.

We already are seeing the problem with road construction--cities avoiding doing work that would require bringing the sidewalks up to current standards. I don't know what the issue is but those curb cuts for wheelchairs are labor intensive.

▲

lkey a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Contributing to a net loss of funding and attention, all while making the public more ignorant and more passive, results in material harms to the population they claim to serve.

This kind of self-aggrandizement at other's expense deserves to be recognized as it is and should be met with an equal measure of contempt.

▲

TulliusCicero a day ago | parent [-]

Really letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. No, we can't let people attempt new inventions, some of which may actually help, because the mere fact that people will see them may result in less attention for more basic, important stuff.

Is there solid evidence that TED talks about stair-climbing wheelchairs undermine actual regulations and investments in ramps, or is this more of a "my source is that I made it up" kind of situation?

▲

Lalabadie a day ago | parent | next [-]

You replied "Letting perfect be the enemy of good" several times in the comments here. I think the sentence works against the arguments you're making:

Perfect is the promise of a climb-everywhere-wheelchair. It's hypothetical, dreamed up, and causing people to forego the immediate and good solution (ramps).

▲

bluGill a day ago | parent [-]

You are also making the assumption that the hypothetical climb-everywhere-wheelchair is better than a ramp.

The ramp is easier to make safe, and so we need to ask about safety if it works most of the time. This also gets into maintenance, the robot with moving parts is expected to have more parts to break.

The ramp's batteries will never go dead (or if they do it doesn't matter since they are only for lights anyway?).

	▲	a day ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

lkey a day ago | parent | prev [-]

There's a consistent pattern of people 'solving' a minority population's 'problems' without ever looking at what problems they actually have.

I have 'solid evidence' from my time in industry where heedlessly pursuing 'innovation' got companies (including my own) sued back into compliance with the ADA. Along with deserved lost contracts and managerial beheadings.

Higher profile examples of TED talk 'innovation' killing 'the good' would be the proposed CA 'hyperloop' talk, white paper, and project scuttling high-speed rail investment for another decade plus.

What are your bona fides now that you've brought up your familiarity with both perfection and good?

▲

capitainenemo a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't see why it's either/or. There are a lot more legacy doors and stairs especially around the world, than there are people who could be helped with a climbing wheelchair or exoskeleton frame. And there's some infrastructure that might not be possible to upgrade, for historical preservation reasons.

Maybe the tech will always be too bulky, but it could also be rented out on location when traveling.

▲

toast0 a day ago | parent [-]

Accessibility ramps and accessible doorknobs are easy to empathize with. Most everybody is going to be in a situation where those are necessary or at least helpful at some point in their life.

Exoskeletons and climbing wheelchairs can help the people who need them on a regular basis. But when you hurt yourself so climbing stairs is an ordeal and need temporary accommodations, universal accessible design means those accommodations are already there, whereas there's probably not going to be climbing wheelchairs and exoskeletons easily available.

Doing both things is the way forward. It takes time for the built environment to change, but it's been about 35 years since the ADA passed and it's getting harder to find public buildings (in the US) without the basics like ramps, accessible doors, and accessible restrooms. This mostly happened without a lot of fanfare, but by enforcement over time; most jurisdictions will check for accessibility during the permit processes for building and occupancy permits; if not, the ADA provides a private right of enforcement.

There's no jurisdictions providing permitting for the digital world (except maybe app stores?); there's some ability to do private ADA enforcement, but it's not as established as for physical accessibility. There's also federal standards for municipal websites that are going to be in effect real soon now.

	▲	8note a day ago \| parent [-]
		on the other hand, the vibes are off when everything is so standardized, such that maybe the affordances exist for the building, but there's nobody inside. youve avoided the problem as a whole by removing the building as a destination