> Either way, it seems like the best way for the site to accommodate visitors is to use accessibility features so their written content can be used by screen readers for the sight impaired but also sign language displayers for people who prefer sign language and text to speech for people who can’t read but can hear.

While the implementation could definitely be improved, I can't fault them for trying. Perhaps stuff like this will be streamlined in the next decade.

> I don’t think accessibility should be binary for one or the other but dedicating resources to visual sign language seems like a luxury that most sites can’t afford.

You could make the same argument about making sites compatible with screen readers — and many do. At the end of the day, I think it's reasonable for government services to be held to a higher standard of accessibility.

In the US there is a standard in the ADA called section 508 that specifies what is required.

I can fault them for trying if their failure makes it harder for people to access the site. At the end of the day there’s a fixed dev budget and if it’s spent on one thing and misses other important things that’s bad. It is nice that they have good intentions and it’s better than nothing. But they should be faulted so they can correct the fault and do better next time.

> But they should be faulted so they can correct the fault and do better next time.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. They're clearly trying to do better as this is a fairly novel approach. Is it perfect? No. But I'm puzzled by the weirdly negative and aggressive reaction this is getting.

Deaf people are often neglected and forgotten about. My partner's father is deaf and when he visits government services, had medical appointments, etc., they almost never provide an interpreter — despite it being a legal requirement he requests in advance which is fully subsidized — because they assume that writing stuff down on paper or making vague gestures is adequate. If awareness and accessibility for deaf people is this bad in a major Canadian metropolitan area, imagine how bad it is in smaller areas and countries.

My point is that there are accessibility standards. If a site doesn’t follow them and instead does something else, even with good intentions, that should be pointed out so they do better next time.

I don’t think I feel terribly negative other than if the goal is to accommodate dead people then the site made a poor decision that whirl accommodating some dead people made it harder for other people who need different accessibilities.

I don’t think the issue is awareness so much as accommodation. I think resources are better spent on solving the problems that can be solved rather than raising awareness.

> I don’t think the issue is awareness so much as accommodation. I think resources are better spent on solving the problems that can be solved rather than raising awareness.

This is a false dichotomy: we can do both. And I respectfully disagree about the issue not being awareness. The comments on this post itself demonstrates the lack of awareness and understanding about deaf people's experience.