Post #2450599
2026-05-07 20:26 UTC
@agnes@pdx.social Good point. But consider whose convenience you are centring. It is the person who 1) can't read my language and 2) wants to communicate _between_ language communities.
Consider instead the grandparent who reads my language, but not English, and wants to communicate _within_ their language community. (And, Thai or Arabic may be better examples than Japanese, because they use Latin letters less.) For them, a handle which they can easily read and type is much easier than a foreign one they have to decode. And I suspect that communication within language communities is much more common than between language communities.
"Inclusive" means including more people when designing systems. Even people not like the designers.
Replies (1)
-
@agnes@pdx.social 2026-05-07 21:47
@jdlh@mstdn.ca I wouldn’t underestimate people like that (they may use it less, but it doesn’t mean they’re clueless and can’t even manage handles), but perhaps having more options is better than not having options, even if it results in more siloed and disconnected inter-language communities. (As in, it’s not as if people are especially keen on communicating across language barriers to begin with, so it probably doesn’t matter if no one outside of your language community can @ you or not.)