[blindlaw] Format Question
b75205 at gmail.com
b75205 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 9 17:25:39 UTC 2008
Dennis:
The ACB lawsuit is against Social Security and they are the ones doing
the "hand holding" as they are concentrating on making everything turned
into text but unformatted text or text made from PDF files is usually a
mess, especially if it was created using a mac in InDesign and translated
into a PDF file on a Windows based computer and then turned into a text
file. You see this stuff all the time, and it looks like people just do not
care but in reality they did not consider the transition from one format to
the other.
The NFB lawsuit is great, it finally breaches the gap from the public to
the private sector. I tried to do this with the National Voter Registration
form by showing that if the states were willing to deny the right to vote
to people because they made their voter registration forms incaccessible
then we could use the laws of the Voting Rights Act to force Integration
under the Civil rights Act of 1964 which enables the 14th Amendment Section
2 to be imposed upon the states if they do not comply, and this would to
everyone in the state, not just the public sector.
Social Security was required to be accessible to the blind 35 years ago
under the Rehabiliation Act of 1973. There is no excuse. They were required
to do this in 1998 under Section 508 of the Rehabiliation Act and here is
the law. http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=3
What we need here is a review of accessibility law and make sure everyone
understands that the federal government mandated accessibility years ago
and nobody has complied.
And they have not complied because IT people refuse to do it. It is that
simple. Managers have been told that it is too expensive or that it is
impossible. That's Bull. It can be done and it can be done when people make
the documents, and the only thing preventing accessibility is the knowledge
of how to do it and the pride of IT officials who do not know how to do it
and refuse to budge and learn.
The Target lawsuit is so out of whack I cannot beleive it. The problem with
Target is that they probably are using an old database and so they would
have to get a new one. Chances are they have not updated their software.
That could be rather expensive but they will have to do it anyway, just for
security issues alone. Target has always had a corporate mentality of being
able to do anything they want and so when the federal government mandates
things to them, they tend to consider it a nuisance and so they are not
handling this well at all. You would think that given they just lost the
case they would have fixed their site by now, but they haven't. And what is
amazing is that it is so easy to do this. Accessibility is easy to those
who know how to do it. This is what accessibility gets down to is using new
software and having the right people who know how to write code properly
create the websites with the idea that accessibility is the prime issue.
Many people in IT think that if you make a website standards compliant that
that makes it accessible, but you have to put accessibility features into
the site.
Of coure Targets site is not web standards compliant. No, Target needs to
fire its IT People and hire people who will keep them out of lawsuits. The
costs of the lawyers and the settlement could have been put into updating
their database and hiring people to fix their site. Also if they fix their
site they would be able to use it on Cell phones and Iphones. The
transition to Web 2 is almost the same requirements to start a website to
accessibility, so Target is still in the dark ages of web design.
This is such a waste.
The reality of Accessibility is that it shows that IT people have no clue
what they are doing and they are getting caught. They are getting caught
being unprofessional, they are getting caught writing code that is written
badly, they are illiterate when it comes to writing computer code.
They are leaving their corporations out to dry.
James Pepper
On Dec 9, 2008 9:25am, Dennis Clark <dennisgclark at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
>
> Good to see you on the list. I lost track of you after law school, and I
am happy to see that the bar exam is behind you and that you are now in
practice. In your message you referred to another "ACB, let's all hold
blind folks hands, as they cannot help themselves lawsuit." I assume you
are referring to the law suit against Target and that was actually launched
with the support of the NFB and litigated by the Disability Rights
Advocates in California. I am personally pleased that the NFB did this, but
I will admit I am aggressive on this point, and I have no problem forcing
even private entities such as Target to be fully accessible to the blind.
The Target action can of course be argued as "hand holding," since there
are alternatives for reading any website, such as using a reader, or the
free market solution of simply shopping at a store which demonstrates that
it wants the business of blind people by offering an accessible website,
but I don't subscribe to that argument. After all, everything is accessible
if we use sighted assistance, but the accessibility alternative needs to be
practical, not just plausible.
>
>
>
>
>
> Forcing the Social Security Administration to provide accessible
communications is an even easier philosophical question for me, because
unlike Target, the government is not a private entity. There are many
shopping alternatives available to us other than Target, but we are forced
to interact with the Social Security Administration.
>
>
>
>
>
> Also, the Social Security Administration use to telephone blind
recipients to tell them about any problems or written communications being
mailed to them, so we are not asking them to do something new or
unworkable. I know for a fact that this was true in 2004, because I
represented someone before the Social Security Administration, and this
procedure was already in place and was offered as part of the solution to
my client's problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> As a matter of law, and in addition to the 504 argument, I think a strong
constitutional argument can be made as a matter of due process if it is the
case that there is a property interest in Social Security payments. It is
likely that there is no property interest in SSI payments, but I am
confident there is with SSDI and retirement payments since they result from
money paid into Social Security by the recipient.
>
>
>
>
>
> I look forward to hearing others thoughts on this matter.
>
>
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
>
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net>
>
>
> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>
>
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:22 PM
>
>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Format Question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I actually agree with you. I am more concerned about the lack of activity
regarding inaccessible web sites and the use of sucdh formats such as
captia and flash formats where image text is presented not bering readable
by screen readers.
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " joramsey at cox.net>
>
>
> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>
>
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:09 AM
>
>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Format Question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
>
> I have no dispute that we should be able to receive communications in an
>
>
> accessible format, but I am just not ready for another ACB, let's all hold
>
>
> blind folks hands, as they cannot help themselves lawsuit.
>
>
> Take care,
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq.
>
>
>
>
>
> Gainesville, FL 32609
>
>
>
>
>
> Phone: (352) 505-6642
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>
>
> Behalf Of ckrugman at sbcglobal.net
>
>
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:41 AM
>
>
> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>
>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Format Question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Its interesting because I recall many years ago that SSA used to say that
>
>
> materials were available in Braille and people could receive
communications
>
>
> from them in Braille. This was back in the 60's when I was growing up. I'm
>
>
> not sure what the extent of this was or if or when it was discontinued.
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathleen Hagen" khagen12 at q.com>
>
>
> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>
>
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 1:24 PM
>
>
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Format Question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John, There is a certified class for blind social security recipients
>
>
> in
>
>
> which they are suing the SSA for accessible documents. That does not mean
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> that SSA is providing alternative formats for consumer's materials yet.
>
>
> And they probably won't for some time while they spend the taxpayers'
>
>
> money figuring out how to avoid it. They do hire blind people and they
>
>
> provide general materials in braille at least. But your friend shouldn't
>
>
> expect to see her consumer-related material in alternative format any time
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> soon.
>
>
> Kathy Hagen
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John " joramsey at cox.net>
>
>
> To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>
>
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 11:09 AM
>
>
> Subject: [blindlaw] Format Question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
> i am on another NFB list and an individual seems to be under the
>
>
> impression
>
>
> that the Social Security Administration is violating her rights because
>
>
> she
>
>
> received the cost of living increase letter in the same format that
>
>
> everyone
>
>
> else receives the notice. Apparently this is just a standard letter in a
>
>
> standard envelope. I am personally not aware of any law that requires an
>
>
> entity to send "accessible" letters to everyone that might have a visual
>
>
> disability. If this is the law, can someone point me to the section of
>
>
> the
>
>
> CFR that contains such a requirement?
>
>
> Cordially,
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John A. Ramsey Jr., Esq.
>
>
>
>
>
> Gainesville, FL 32609
>
>
>
>
>
> Phone: (352) 505-6642
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> blindlaw mailing list
>
>
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>
>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>
>
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>
>
> blindlaw:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/khagen12%40q.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> blindlaw mailing list
>
>
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>
>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>
>
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>
>
> blindlaw:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglob
>
>
> al.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> blindlaw mailing list
>
>
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>
>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>
>
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>
>
> blindlaw:
>
>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/joramsey%40cox.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> blindlaw mailing list
>
>
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>
>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>
>
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
>
>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> blindlaw mailing list
>
>
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>
>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>
>
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
>
>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dennisgclark%40sbcglobal.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> blindlaw mailing list
>
>
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>
>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>
>
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
>
>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b75205%40gmail.com
>
>
>
More information about the BlindLaw
mailing list