1. 37
  1. 7

    Great news, I wonder what it means in practice.

    Offtopic: Why not just change the ‘a11y’ tag to ‘accessibility’? It’s highly non-obvious what it means to most people.

    1. 6

      There’s an argument that writing “a11y” is ironically inaccessible because it isn’t obvious what it means. I don’t buy it because someone only has to tell you once and then you never wonder again.

      I espouse the counter argument that insisting everyone write “accessibility” instead has worse accessibility because it’s a difficult word to spell. ;)

      It’s jargon either way. :)

      1. 3

        Agreed on the a11y tag.

      2. 4

        This is good news and I’m glad to hear it.

        (I have suggested removing the a11y tag because this story doesn’t mention assistive tech, screen readers, getting your <p> and <h1> to <h6> hierarchy right, etc.)

        1. 1

          I’m not sure if it means much. The whole point of developing integrated circuit is making things more integrated. Are you going to repair your CPU? Impossible. Are you going to repair your GPU? Hardly. We are seeing larger and larger SOCs containing more and more stuff. The cost of repair would eventually be higher than mass production, because you just can’t mass repair to lower the cost. Right to Recycle would be much better.

          1. 2

            I don’t think there are many (any?) devices that are 100% unrepairable because they have components that are “too integrated”.

            Also, if you think this just applies to CPUs, etc, you’re missing out on many (many) other components devices have that wear out/break, like buttons, displays, batteries, chassis, plugs (e.g. like usb, power barrel), and so on.

            1. 1

              There are two problems here; answering your premise (plenty of that stuff can be repaired, actually), and addressing the validity of your premise in the first place (it’s our right to try to repair stuff, we can legally repair our own car brakes let alone electronics and we don’t have to justify these rights to anyone, whereas manufacturers who abuse their manufacturing size specifically to prevent the sale of spare chips by vendors do need to justify whether this monopolism is a legally justifiable business practice).