Apparently some people really like to miss the point of my “if im not able to do it myself…it’s not accessible post” and asking why does that even need to be a statement because that’s what accessibility is. Yes, you are correct that IS what accessibility SHOULD mean and SHOULD be. However, that is not the case when it comes to “accessibility” in the real world. If I cannot open the “accessible” bathroom door because it’s heavier than we and my chair combined…it shouldn’t be called accessible just because you slapped some bars next to the toilet and called it at a day. If it was truly accessible I WOULDN’T have to ask my partner to help me open the door. I’m not simply stating a redundant statement about the literal meaning of accessibility. I am criticizing the structural design that labels things as accessible when they are no where near that. People who aren’t disabled don’t get that. They don’t get what things need to be like to ACTUALLY be accessible and that is a huge problem that needs to be addressed with modern architecture. It’s one thing if it’s something like a historic building that legally cannot be structurally modified (I work in one such building). It’s a completely different (and unacceptable) thing if it’s a building that can be modified OR should have been built accessible in the first place.
Architectural ableism is a rampant problem that has not excuse to not be solved in a modern era. It’s not a lack of technology. It’s a lack of care and shows how little society cares or has any understanding for the actual needs of disabled individuals nor the range of what disability can mean.
