♿🔞 Many, Round-Bottom Flask on Nostr: nothing is universally accessible, though some things are near-universally ...

nothing is universally accessible, though some things are near-universally inaccessible.

conflicting access needs are what happens when two disabilities, or even two instances of disabilities broadly considered "the same", have needs wherein one cannot be fulfilled in the same space at the same time as the other.

some examples of this include:
- folks who need quiet time and a lack of loud interruptions vs folks who need to make loud noises or cannot control doing so via tics and such
- ppl who need light mode vs ppl who need dark mode
- ppl who need linux vs mac vs windows' various features (ie, screen reader support vs deep customizability and ability to change how everything functions, not having intrusive UI changes forced upon you every update, etc)
- needing specific content warnings vs needing to be able to talk about things that are fundamental to your everyday life without slapping a warning on every other post

this concept is a big reason why providing more *choice and autonomy* is an improvement on accessibility in many cases. and, of course, every space can stand to be more accessible.

like, linux SHOULD have more screen reader support and many more accessibility features, just as windows SHOULD stop putting fucking ads in people's faces and fucking with privacy And And And etc. a space full of lots of loud things or expecting many people should have quiet spaces for rest where u can escape the noise.

but i think it's utterly unhelpful to think about these things as "this space is accessible!"

accessible to whom? how? you cannot simply say something is More Accessible than another thing without specifying who it's accessible to.