Having an accessibility to something is being able to conveniently use it, and even in this “completely modern” century, it isn’t possible for everyone. Although it should be, tons of minorities, or people that are different from what society deems to be normal, indirectly face discrimination with the lack of provision of the same opportunities and services in society. Though many of us in a fully developed society take these basic things for granted, so many people are not given the same access to chances around the world.

In the first article about ableist architecture, access is attempting to be achieved by removing any obstacles that would hinder disabled people from having the same experience, or by adding structures that would help them achieve the same thing. In my personal opinion, I think that there is a very beneficial way of narrowing the gap in inequality. Ramps, handles, extended space, and other little accommodations would provide greater accessibility and eventually gain more revenue for people. For example, Northeastern has wheelchair accessible rooms with lower peepholes and handles in the bathrooms for everyone.

Although it might not be perfect per say, we should change existing structures to the point where we can accommodate people, but also preserve the experience for the entirety of society. For example, the cobblestone roads and small sidewalks of historic towns, like Charleston, can be kept the way they are as to retain their cultural significance/identity. I think ultimately, it is up to the private business to make decisions about the extent of their changes, but as it stated in the article, they would have a much greater customer basis if they made adaptations. It would be unethical, in my opinion, to have the ability to make something more accessible for all types of people to access, but not do so. To consciously make the decision to not acknowledge disabled people or those that differ from the norm, is very unethical.

In the second article about technology, I feel that the provision to an extent that is feasible by the government/school should be done for the young children. Young children cannot help being born into a more low-income area, and therefore can be held back for their entire lives because of how technology dependent our lives have become professionally. By providing them with the ability to “catch up” to the same level that higher-income students get to because of their resources, we are making a good education and jobs more accessible to everyone. I agree that subsidies should be given to allow for technology in every public school to be accessible to children, even while not provided at home.