> If you’re a web developer, accessibility is literally your job. If you ignore it, you’re just a hobbyist.
Just as if you ignore security, privacy, responsiveness and performance of the site, you’re just a hobbyist. Enterprises usually hide behind budgets and quarterly numbers not to do most of these things.
Accessibility is not for “other people” or “disabled people”. There are people who tend to think that way. It’s actually for yourself and everyone else. Without accessibility features, even the average normie would have a much tougher life.
I don't get why it is considered useful to denigrate hobbyists to score internet points.
If you regularly get paid to do something, it is your job.
Maybe you are good at your job. Maybe you are not. Maybe some people think you are and others think you aren't.
If you do something without getting paid to do it, it is likely a hobby.
Maybe you are good at your hobby. Maybe you are not. Maybe some people think you are and others think you aren't.
I get paid to create, update, and maintain software. That is my job. If I'm doing my job poorly, that does not make me a "hobbyist". It makes me someone who does his job poorly.
One of my hobbies is playing guitar. And no matter how good I get at playing, until the day someone pays me to play the guitar, I'm still a hobbyist.
There are many hobbyist guitarists whose musical skill level is equal to or greater than the skill level of professional guitarists. And while you may sometimes hear a talented hobbyist guitarist lament that some untalented guitarist became wealthy playing simple songs, it would never make sense to anyone to claim that the 3 chord playing rock star could or should be denigrated by labeling him a "hobbyist".
Right, so if you believe that, then you believe someone who fails to do that is doing poorly in their job.
That doesn't make them a hobbyist. It makes them bad at their job.
If you equate people who are bad at their jobs with hobbyists, it implies that hobbyists are bad at what they do which is simply untrue. Many hobbyists are very very good at what they do and they are usually free from the constraints that come with a job (e.g., doing what your manager thinks is important rather than what you think is important).
i'm ok with pushing the importance of accessibility for "websites intended for the general public", but there are a very large number of web projects out there with a very targeted audience that simply do not have the same accessibility needs as a large retail or informational or government website. Internal webapps for known users are what a lot of us are working on, and accessibility is often not much of a concern.
> That doesn't make them a hobbyist. It makes them bad at their job.
Correct. The point is that a hobbyist doesn't have to care about it. When I write software for personal use (read: as a hobbyist), I don't worry about having good accessibility labels, or testing for localization support. When it's a hobby, I write the software I want to use.
When I write software professionally, I need to make sure it is accessible. Otherwise I have failed.
> If you equate people who are bad at their jobs with hobbyists, it implies that hobbyists are bad at what they do which is simply untrue. Many hobbyists are very very good at what they do
I see it as distinguishing between endeavors where being good is a requirement and those that are not. Of course there are many highly talented and skilled hobbyists but it’s not a requirement. It’s not even a requirement to want to get good at a hobby, though most probably do have some level of attainment in mind.
Just as if you ignore security, privacy, responsiveness and performance of the site, you’re just a hobbyist. Enterprises usually hide behind budgets and quarterly numbers not to do most of these things.
Accessibility is not for “other people” or “disabled people”. There are people who tend to think that way. It’s actually for yourself and everyone else. Without accessibility features, even the average normie would have a much tougher life.