In the first article, Albeist Architecture, the idea of access points at the idea that everyone, no matter their physical condition is able to get to the same places as everyone else. This doesn’t necessarily mean anywhere they want to go since obviously some places are restricted in general, but any handicap someone has shouldn’t be the limiting factor. The main solution to this as seen in the US was to make it unlawful to discriminate based on disability but this mostly applies for new buildings, any older buildings which have been “grandfathered” in are much harder to force to transition to have disability accessibility options. I think a good way to incentivize this transition could be for the government to offer some a small amount of money if old buildings renovate to include these accessibility options, or similarly offer tax breaks for places which change to be more accessible. I personally don’t really think that there should be too large of an effort to transition all of our buildings to be more accessible since it doesn’t seem to be too much of a pressing issue but there needs to be at least some effort. That’s mostly because I don’t really feel I don’t feel that these instances are as unethical as others we’ve seen in class. For example, in the airplane example, the airplane companies are really just trying to make as much money as possible, and there are likely specially designated seats at the front of most airplanes to accommodate those with disabilities. Overall, the amount a certain city decides to push towards having more accessible buildings can be adapted by changes in the incentive (in amount of money) that they provide for more accessible places.

With the technological gap article I feel like it’s even less of an instances of unethical design but more of a downside to having a capitalistic economy since not everyone will be able to afford everything. While having the government provide places which have high speed internet with devices for public use, such as computers at a public library, could help the poor, I really don’t think should be approached as something that was poorly done in the past, but something that will always be present as an almost unsolvable issue. I do think that it would be for the best to help out those in worse situation since it provides for a better society overall, but because of the natural selfishness of people in general its sadly not always the case.