Perhaps it’s a significant error to think of it as a pretty & shiny badge. What if it looked like this? No shiny, just internationally understandable symbology.
I think that a lack of a seal of accessibility wouldn’t signify low quality. It would signify potentially low accessibility, which is the idea.
Considering there is no XP involved, no levels being gained, no artificially contrived constructs of reward at all, I don’t think this represents gamification in the slightest. Making it easier for disabled people to find products designed with them in mind is not an artificial game design construct. Compliance doesn’t even signify that much of a reward for the developer.
More than anything it would simply stand to benefit the disabled users, and connect them to developers who decided to cater to them for personal reasons (disabled family, friends, self) or financial reasons (gunning hard for the assistive technology market) or other reasons (boredom?).
I don’t think it’s disingenuous to think of Andrew Belt as a human being who may have been working with incomplete information at the time he made the decision. People make mistakes.
Of course I respect his status as maintainer and rights holder, as well as the owner of this discussion board. If he chose to lock this thread, I would understand.
I myself followed the original discussion last year, and for me reading this thread was eye opening. The accessibility angle was something that I personally had never considered, and to my knowledge was not a part of the original discussion last year. So I thought it was worth highlighting that point, taking it to its logical conclusion, and considering it. I thought maybe I wasn’t the only one who would find this an eye opening angle on an old topic. (In the context of this discussion, I really wish I didn’t use visual metaphors so often…)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, sincerely. I personally value your contributions to the library and this community.