> Providing an iPad to type messages on is a reasonable accommodation

Doesn't that make communication slower? When I want to buy something, I certainly don't want to start chatting on a tablet to get my point across. It seems like a poor choice of position for that employee.

It can be difficult to communicate this way but I think there is a social benefit to making the extra effort for people with disabilities. Often you don’t choose to be disabled. What if you were unlucky to be disabled? Would you like your opportunities to be thoroughly reduced in life? I try to make an effort because I could have been in that employee’s shoes. I am lucky… this is the least I can do.

Further, most people will have some sort of temporary or permanent disability at some point in their life. People break their legs, get older and become deaf, or blind, etc.

Interacting with people with disabilities gives us an opportunity to think about how we can make society a little better not just for them, but for ourselves in the case that we become sick, or injured, or just live to be elderly enough that parts of our bodies have fulfilled their expected useful life and stop working.

Yep. This is literally the lesson that is demonstrated extremely clearly by the software of, ironically, Apple. Really good accessibility support ends up being really useful to all sorts of people in all sorts of ways.

I have near perfect vision/hearing/speech and no motor difficulties, but there are several accessibility features that I enable on my Mac and iPhone because they make it easier for me to do certain things.

Even outside the software realm, examples like adding ramps to entrances instantly makes life a little bit easier for people pushing carts/strollers, which at various times is a pretty huge part of the population.

When I go to a store, I'm not doing it out of charity for the employees. I'm doing it because I want to buy something, in the most efficient and/or pleasant way possible.

I'd much rather fund social programs which just outright support people with disabilities (and I'd like such programs to be more robust and empathetic than they are today). Frankly, if you're not going to be able to do your job well in the first place, this works out better for everyone.

Huh, I'm exactly the opposite. While I do donate money to social programs, any time I have the opportunity to help others I'd much rather it be with my time and efforts than with simply handing over cash for somebody else to deal with people who need assistance. It is much more fulfilling for me to be able to interact with people I'm helping, and who may help me some day. If this is as simple as taking a few more minutes to interact with a retail clerk that needs extra time communicating, that seems like an almost no effort opportunity.

It depends on the extent of the disability, but if your job is to stand in a store and answer verbal questions, and you can't speak, there are probably better things to be doing with your life.

Consider the other perspective here: I'd posit that all else being equal, most people would rather not have to go to work every day, particularly if "work" is a crappy retail job. We force most people to work because their jobs benefit the rest of society, but if someone can't work in a way that helps others, why force them to do it? Because it's not fair to everyone else?

Because hard work is good for the soul? Screw that! Go read books, raise your children, live your life as best you can, and let the rest of us take care of you. If the situation were reversed, I'd expect you to do the same for us.

Agreed, donating money to social programs is helpful but isn't it much better to allow people to have a richer social life and to feel respected? It's not much more work to write on an ipad when asking a deaf employee and it allows him to have a much more fulfilling life.

Why is employment equal to fulfillment? This feels like a backwards approach to making a better society. We should be trying to reduce the amount of work that needs to be done, so that people can interact with others on their own terms, rather than expecting workplaces to provide for a person's emotional, social, as well as economic needs.

Nothing wrong with this point of view, there are definitely times when I want to be out of the store as fast as humanly possible.

Couple of times I have been served by a deaf employee in my local Apple store, we typed sentences on the iPad. It was slower a bit but otherwise perfectly fine.

If this person wanted just money from social programs they would do that. But you could tell it was important for them to work, to communicate with other people, and have a sense of purpose. And it was my pleasure and privilege to participate in this, for these brief several minutes.

It might not have been the fastest way but it was definitely pleasant (2nd part of your criteria), for both of us.

I like the idea of people having a life and not a warehouse to be put into

How about ugly people? Certainly they don’t like to be limited in their opportunities to attract attractive people. Should the government pass laws to compensate them for this shortcoming? I stutter. Most of you people made fun of me or made me feel inadequate. The government didn’t do anything for me. Should some law be passed to compensate me for years of humiliation. How about women discarding me as a potential mate? Should I start a “Stutters Lives Matters” movement? What other human shortcomings that nature bestows upon us would you like the government to fix?

I agree. My reasons are more selfish and basic:

Any of us could be disabled or our person may be a target for discrimination or worse.

Could be me.

And I make sure while it is not me I can increase the net happiness in the world.

From my experience with a deaf employee at an Apple store, it was actually pretty efficient, because communication was precise and to the point and there was no unnecessary small talk or attempts to sell me something I wasn’t asking for. Might have been less appropriate for customers that walk in not knowing what they want.

Also seems like a great way to demo speech to text use by the customer

We don’t always get what we want when we go out into the public and deal with other people.

Sometimes I want to zip in and out of the grocery store but there’s an old lady in front of me who wants to argue about an expired coupon and it takes longer than I’d like. Such is life.

I stop shopping in places where the customer service is slow. Such is life.

Would you ditch Apple if you had a customer service experience with a deaf person and it took 3-5 minutes longer than it would have with a hearing person?

I'd be really happy to see we are accommodating people with disabilities.

A reminder to me that if I lost my eyesight, hearing, or mobility, I won't be left behind.

I'm not sure why I would need to talk to a customer service person in real life at apple. If I did (and I don't think I ever had) need to communicate my preference would be via email, or perhaps real time text chat. There's no reason someone who's deaf couldn't be on the end of those.

I did however cancel a £1000 order with currys because they didn't provide anyone to talk to - by phone, email or even text chat (which only worked on some browsers). The only form of communication was 'fill this form in to cancel your order'.

So this is kind of a 'dark pattern' as it makes orders harder to cancel. I think it can be intentional sometimes.

Ironically with currys the only option that seemed possible was to cancel.

I’d be more inclined to get a kick out of the situation.

They're human beings.

What if it was 30-50 minutes longer? 3-5 hours longer?

Yes, there are human beings on the other side of our daily transactions that should always be treated with respect. However, these are transactions, not social calls.

I live 10 minutes away from an Ace hardware, 20 minutes away from Home Depot. I almost always go to Ace and pay a few dollars more because when I walk in the door, somebody immediately asks me if they can help me find what I'm looking for. They walk me to the isle and spend a few minutes discussing the various options. If I had to communicate awkwardly through a tablet, I'd honestly just spend a few more minutes driving and save the money.

Sales is a communication-heavy job. It's pretty common already to offer extra pay for bilingual associates. I don't see what the difference is here; nobody would hire me for a job selling in Mandarin, even though I could run Google Translate on a tablet.

> Sales is a communication-heavy job.

I think this is the issue in a nutshell. And as a salesperson, you don't get to define the method by which customers want to interact with you.

They're the ones with the money. You're the one trying to get the money. They get to have you meet them where they prefer.

That's what self-service stands are for. Let the little old ladies argue about coupons all day long, I can get in and out with my few items quicker.

Then work with a different employee. The additional time in minimal. This is a pretty disgusting attitude, honestly. "I'm not willing to be in this store for 18 minutes instead of 16 minutes, how dare this handicapped person attempt to do their job and assist me!"

> Then work with a different employee.

But isn't this exactly the customer behavior Richard Dahan was complaining about?

It won't take 2 more minutes to chat via text.

It's possible that you've missed the point.

This is similar to being annoyed at the disabled folks who are hired to bag groceries at supermarkets; it’s not a lot to ask for us to deal with suboptimal retail experiences if it gives the disabled earning/buying power, which has a net positive effect on society in general.

You have agency here; you could choose to shop somewhere else, where they would prioritize your retail experience by not hiring the disabled. By the way this would also make you a giant knob :)

The self-service lanes at many grocery stores have lines even when human cashiers are available. People don't want others handling their groceries, because even fully able employees do a very poor job on average. Online shopping has exploded for similar reasons - convenience and choice for the customer trumps social good.

> If you were that important, you'd be driving an ambulance.

I'm stealing that line... thanks for the chuckle and snort on a Saturday morning.