[Blindtlk] Resolution that didn't pass about apple

[T. Joseph Carter]

Apple uses the same Hardware as Microsoft.  The fact that Apple 
chooses the hardware lessens driver issues, because there is less 
possibility of introducing incompatibility that way.  Microsoft has 
had since 1992 (that's 19 years, for those keeping track) to improve 
accessibility of their operating system.  In that time, the whole GUI 
has undergone four major revisions, two of them being complete API 
changes.  Windows still supports three of those APIs more or less 
unchanged.  Where Windows accessibility necessarily falls flat is 
when developers create new controls that JAWS and friends cannot 
access.

Apple has to contend with Carbon, Cocoa, ProKit, whatever gets used 
for iLife apps, and Java, and a few UIs that aren't written by Apple 
(the biggest being Adobe.)  Like Microsoft, Apple has no control over 
3rd party controls.  But Apple's accessibility API was built with 
that in mind—if I make a custom widget or view, it's my job as a 
developer to create accessibility for it.  Apple has given me the 
tools to do it, and if I don't use them then it's on me, because the 
tools were certainly there and waiting for me.

Apple has a lot less control than you think in that realm.  They 
tend, for example, to introduce new features to their own apps with 
no public API.  Developers, seeing the trend, try to reinvent the 
wheel because Apple didn't give them their new toys.  Examples of 
these include the full screen app interface from iPhoto (now finally 
available in Lion), the floating gray palettes (I've seen public code 
for no less than four implementations of these—dunno if Apple ever 
did release theirs offhand), the unified view that has now become 
standard in Cocoa before that, and many more.

The field is just as muddy as Windows, and more so because Apple 
tends to keep their toys for themselves until so many developers have 
duplicated them and created a UI fashion trend that Apple packages 
the controls for everybody to use because of the high demand.

So if Windows is somehow harder to make accessible than the Mac, the 
fault lies with Microsoft.  Apple's legacy code base dates back to 
1984 or 1989, depending on whether you're discussing the history of 
NeXT or of the code base that became Carbon.  Apple has expressed 
their desire to do away with Carbon going forward, and has redefined 
the term only to refer to the UI components—iTunes is still a 
Carbon-based application, much to the consternation of its users!  It 
just no longer looks like one.  That's why when iTunes is tagging 
your media, the music stops playing—iTunes doesn't thread like a 
modern app because it isn't—it dates to 1999's SoundJam MP, which 
Apple licensed, modified, and rebranded originally without Mac OS X 
support at all.

If you think Apple had an easier time of it than Microsoft, I refer 
you to Nikola Tesla's remark: "If Mr. Edison had thought smarter, he 
wouldn't sweat so much."  How many years have I heard people crowing 
about the reason why Windows was so accessible was because Microsoft 
created these great accessibility hooks?  Or how JAWS developers work 
with Microsoft to enhance the accessibility of programs like Office?  
Where's that partnership now when someone comes out with something 
better at long last?  Now I hear only excuses.

As for the corporate monolith theory, you obviously don't know Apple 
very well.  Apple is a company full of secrets.  There was a time in 
recent memory where an employee saying a single word outside of a 
locked area was grounds for immediate termination.  It was the name 
of the project which became the iPad.  You'll recall that the iPad 
launched with accessibility features, and its OS had features not 
found in the iPhone in some ways, but lagged behind in others.  
That's because was developed separately, by a handful of Apple's 
employees, whose coworkers didn't know they were working on it, and 
the result was a code base that had diverged from that of the iPhone.  
It had to be merged back in after the fact.

It's worth pointing out that the timespan of accessibility of the Mac 
was after the release of Windows XP by several years—just one year 
before the release of Vista, as a matter of fact.  In that time 
period, Apple has completely changed processor architectures!  How 
does that compare with changing an OS version?  Granted, nobody 
expects Microsoft to know how to do that, since they've only ever had 
to do it once really (and they've screwed it up nicely!)  VoiceOver 
not only had to contend with a new OS version, but with running 
programs for a different processor type on the same machine!  If you 
had enough RAM, it worked flawlessly, too.

So the statement that Apple's job is less complex is really not true.  
It is just as complex, though perhaps for different reasons.  And 
because of factors beyond Apple's control, as with Microsoft and 
Freedom Scientific, not all programs are accessible.  Sounds like a 
pretty similar situation to me.

I will acknowledge that if Microsoft were developing the screen 
reader (something they intend to do in the future), they might well 
be able to give it away because they don't derive their income from 
it.  If FS didn't ding you a few hundred bucks every couple of years, 
they probably wouldn't be able to maintain their present business 
model.  Supposedly Microsoft will be developing a proper screen 
reader in the future.  We'll see what this does to the business on 
the Windows side of things.  They wouldn't have bothered if not for 
Apple's offering, though.

And you Steve may not be expecting Apple to wave a magic wand, but 
others sure are!  If you go back and look at the two resolutions, 
quite clearly contained within them is the notion that Apple must 
never allow any app into its app store (which now includes the Mac) 
if they are not accessible.  That means no video games, no photoshop, 
nothing a blind person cannot use.  The notion is ridiculous on its 
face, but it clearly had support.  No small amount of it, either.

May I quote what DID pass?  "BE IT RESOLVED ... that this 
organization express its frustration and deep disappointment with and 
other controls that cannot be identified by the blind user of 
VoiceOver, thereby rendering them nonvisually inaccessible"

Yup, we're ticked that they ALLOW inaccessible apps to exist.  And at 
convention the argument in favor of passing it was universally that 
if Apple has to approve applications, they can and should deny any 
that wasn't accessible.

And there were two resolutions, likely written by the same person, 
and both in a hostile vein toward Apple.  They were not critical, 
they were hostile.  The one failed because people felt that the 
"condemn and deplore" language was too harsh, but the other passed 
overwhelmingly on the insistence that the first resolution had its 
merits and we didn't pass it.

But y'know it's funny.  The e-book dealt with in the resolution which 
didn't pass was written by Al Gore.  Apple didn't write the app for 
his eBook, but of course they were gonna give him an award for it!  
He's freakin' AL GORE.  We all know he can leap tall buildings in a 
single bound*.  But he's also sat on Apple's board of directors, so 
he knows what a priority accessibility is.  Maybe we ought to have 
directed the resolution toward him?  The NFB condemns and deplores Al 
Gore?  That's so not going to happen.  *grin*

Apple can do a lot to incentivize accessibility, but Apple has lost 
developers and users because of their heavy-handedness.  There has 
been a credible accusation made in recent months that the company has 
engaged in political censorship by approving one candidate's app 
which contains provably false information while denying another on 
the grounds that it contains "factual errors" which were demonstrated 
not to be.  Apparently it's not the first time Apple has shown some 
political favoritism, and there's a strong backlash because of it.

This has rapidly become a hot-button issue in the Apple community 
over whether or not Apple can or should have the right to engage in 
political or any other form of censorship.  The stink over it has 
begun to hurt Apple's bottom line, and that more than anything else 
will force them to be less restrictive, and not more.

I think Apple can do a LOT to enhance accessibility in apps, simply 
by reporting at purchase time which ones are not.  This would greatly 
facilitate me as an app shopper in choosing my apps based on that 
criteria.  I am thinking in particular of apps like Twitterific, 
which when I tested it was inaccessible only because the four buttons 
at the bottom lacked labels.  Our resolution says that Apple should 
reject such an app as inaccessible.  In that one case, I could see 
the argument.  But if the developer has significantly more work to do 
in order to create that accessibility, they're likely to simply take 
their app to Google's Android where accessibility is not required 
(remember Google?  We commended them for their accessibility efforts, 
despite the fact that what we commended them for is still not really 
accessible!)

I say Apple should label the app as inaccessible right next to the 
buy button—preferably with the option to search for only apps that 
are!  In fact, I'd love to see "This app is not accessible.  Search 
for similar accessible apps."  Then Apple's not really forcing anyone 
to do anything.  They're just providing consumer information in a 
manner friendly to those who need it.  Let's see how long Twitterific 
leaves those four buttons unlabeled when people are directed away 
from their app because they've failed to offer accessibility?

Actually as a user, I'd like to see a full on Amazon-style "People 
buy these apps after viewing this one" feature.  But that's for 
another mailing list entirely.

We don't have to make an enemy of Apple, but those who heard our 
debate on the subject at Apple were not amused with the prevailing 
attitude toward them, and I can't blame them.  We certainly have not 
been trying to make them a friend, and we definitely ought to be!

Someone else pointed out in this thread that we ought to see how many 
blind people have an iPhone vs. a KNFB Reader.  That's perhaps a bit 
unfair since the central feature of the KNFB Reader, its accessible 
camera-based OCR, is not to my knowledge available for the iPhone.  
I've heard that there is a camera-based OCR for the iPhone, but 
didn't know anything about it until I just did a quick search.  There 
is "Perfect OCR", which is reported to work with VoiceOver.  It's on 
sale for $3.99 right now, and it's apparently amazingly useful on an 
iPhone 4.  Not so much on the 3GS with the latter's kind of pathetic 
camera by comparison.  I assume regular price is like $9.99 or so.  
THEN at least you're comparing Apples to Apples (if you'll pardon the 
pun).  The app's link: itms://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id363095388

Anyway, the point is that Apple is driving down the cost and vastly 
increasing the availability of accessibility software.  If Apple were 
actually at fault for the applications on the iPhone that aren't 
accessible, I'd see the point.  But they're not.  And the resolution 
we passed pushes for a pie in the sky outcome where the only apps 
that are allowed are those that happen to be accessible.  It's not 
going to happen through those means because we cannot demand anyone 
jeopardize their business and realistically expect cooperation.  If 
we want them to work with us, we have to be ready to work with them.  
So far, we haven't demonstrated that's what we want.

Joseph

* Of course he can leap tall buildings in a single bound, he's got 
that fancy jet, after all!

On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 03:26:08PM -0500, Steve Jacobson wrote:
>Joseph and others,
>
>This is a very important issue in my opinion which is why I am making one more attempt to represent a point of view.  I'm going to try to make this the final
>extended message on this subject, though.  I suppose there is a point when we should just acknowledge that we don't see everything quite the same, but
>there have been some thoughtful exchanges
>here that may have helped to clarify things some.  I also acknowledge that I need to read all of the resolutions to refresh my memory on some of the
>specifics.  Still, I feel there are points that you seem unwilling to address, and I don't feel I can just leave them stand as fact.  You are also looking at
>everything as if it were black and white which makes it more convenient to be critical, but it isn't that simple.
>
>First, the points you state where we are wrong need exploring.  If your definition of being wrong is that commendations were not explicitly in each resolution,
>one can debate that but I would not have personally objected to giving Apple credit for the good that it has done in the resolution about accessible
>standards.  In general, though, we have tried to give them credit in a number of ways, including giving them an award.  You can say that Apple's
>accessibility is on a par with what you can buy, and I will conceed that the stability is probably better.  I think it is a little hard to make a blanket statement,
>though, because there are issues within Windows that make the job of a screen reader a good bit more difficult.  From a user's perspective, they are on a
>par, now, but from the perspetive if developing a screen reader, more has to be done within Windows to support multiple major operating system versions,
>multiple hardware configurations, and a less well defined user interface.  It is my understanding that Apple does not have to contend with an off-screen
>model as do Windows screen readers that need to work with older software, and that is a complex issue.  This point is further complicated by the fact that
>there are differences in the environments
>that go beyond accessibility.  Don't misquote me, though, I'm not saying Apple had an easy job, they did not.  By controlling the hardware and the operating
>system and by exercising some control over the software, the job of developing a screen reader was made simpler, though.
>
>This also means that apple really isn't quite giving away what others sell.  In many ways, what they have done is less complicated due to their overall design
>and control.  Still, it takes more effort to get the same thing out of Windows.  That doesn't make either Apple or Microsoft right or wrong, it's just a complexity
>you don't deal with.
>
>Your statement that "We are wrong for failing to recognize that
>Apple cannot wave a magic wand and make the rest of the world be filled with magical accessibility unicorns," is pure rhetoric.  Nobody is expecting that.  I
>have taken some time to talk about your Photo Shop analogy and to my knowledge you've never responded to that.  Accessibility is never going to be
>100% and there will probably always have to be levels of accessibility depending some upon the application.  The fact remains, though, for the very reasons
>you are critical of Apple, they are in a better position to make accessibility a part of the software development cycle than any other company in the
>marketplace today, and they have indicated some willingness to do that in the past.  Outcomes expressed in a resolution are goals toward which to work,
>not something that can happen at the snap of the finger, but I think you already know that which makes some of what you say here surprising to me.
>
>It goes without saying that I don't want to see us make an enemy of Apple, but I also think that their culture and ours will cause the road to be rough at
>times.  If publically discussing a critical resolution that is defeated upsets them, it is hard for me to think there is much chance of getting along very well.  I
>can better understand that they may not be happy with the passage of the first resolution with the "Condemn and Deplore" language, but in my mind that
>resolution is pretty much calling upon them to do what they have previously indicated they would do and what they already do in other areas.  Still, I am all
>for trying to develop better communications with them.  If you have contacts within Apple, I would call upon you to remind them that there accessibility
>efforts have not only benefited a lot of us, those efforts have opened up some very good markets for them in education and government at the very least
>that will pay off greatly in years to come and is worth pursuing for both their and our benefits.  You could also point out that nothing in either resolution is
>critical, from what I recall, of the accessibility team, but has more to do with corporate policy.  Of course, if you dislike our position and you dislike Apple's
>"Draconian controls," it isn't surprising that you may not be an effective peacemaker.  <smile>
>
>  Best regards,
>
>Steve Jacobson
>
>On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:20:58 -0700, T. Joseph Carter wrote:
>
>>Usually I'm more critical of Apple.  The control freak nature of the
>>company has really ramped up since 2007 with the introduction of the
>>iPhone.  Their products are still superior IMO, and IMO they are
>>simply THE leader in accessibility in the mainstream market, so I
>>have good reason to stay with Apple and their products, but the
>>draconian business practices could cause that to change if they
>>continue.
>
>>However on this issue, the NFB is squarely wrong.  We are wrong for
>>failing to recognize the simple truth that Apple's accessibility is
>>on par with anything else you'd pay for elsewhere.  We're wrong for
>>ignoring that Apple gives away what anyone else charges hundreds and
>>thousands of dollars for.  We are wrong for failing to recognize that
>>Apple cannot wave a magic wand and make the rest of the world be
>>filled with magical accessibility unicorns.  And we are wrong for
>>trying to make an enemy of a company that has proven to be one of our
>>biggest friends in the technology world.
>
>>Apple's not perfect, but when it comes to accessibility, what they've
>>got isn't shabby at all.  In fact, was amazing just a couple of short
>>years ago.  The NFB seems to have a fierce loyalty to the likes of
>>Freedom Scientific despite some very questionable business practices
>>of that company (including trying to do away with their competition
>>who is offering the same service at a lower price!)
>
>>Joseph
>
>
>>On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:35:52AM -0500, Ray Foret Jr wrote:
>>>So of whom are you more critical; Apple or the NFB?
>>>
>>>Kind of hard to know jus how to folow that one.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!
>>>
>>>Now a very proud and happy Mac user!!!
>>>
>>>Skype name:
>>>barefootedray
>>>
>>>Facebook:
>>>facebook.com/ray.foretjr.1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:39 AM, T. Joseph Carter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave,
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's unreasonable to be a bit miffed under the circumstances.  So far the NFB is 1 for 3 when it comes to recognizing the effort they've put
>into creating accessibility (and inventing new technology to do it pretty much from scratch).  And the only reason the NFB is even 1 for 3 is because the
>misrepresentation of the capabilities and functions of VoiceOver were so profound that EVERYBODY who'd ever actually used it screamed foul.
>>>>
>>>> The NFB's track record with Apple is pretty poor, so from their perspective it's got to look like we're shooting our mouths off once again, without the
>faintest clue what we're talking about.  We've certainly done so in the past.
>>>>
>>>> Which, in point of fact, WE ARE.
>>>>
>>>> If Apple starts telling me that I cannot have a certain kind of program, I'm going to tell them to stick it and go write for Android.  It's happened before.
>Actually, it's happened rather a lot.  The entire world is clamoring for Apple to cut that crap out.  And while their customers who give them money are
>demanding they stop placing restrictions on apps, the NFB is arguing the opposite.  And trying to condemn them for not doing so without being told.
>>>>
>>>> You can mince words all you like, but the fact is that the NFB screwed the pooch bigtime with these two resolutions.  We made enemies of people who
>should be our friends.  We've belittled the people who made the touch screen accessible once too often, and they are sick of it.  We've badmouthed the
>people who made accessibility free, rather than more than the cost of the computer you're running it on once too often, and they resent it.  We've made it
>clear that we are not willing to work WITH them, only to dictate terms TO them, and they think we can take a hike.
>>>>
>>>> Apple accessibility does not NEED the NFB.  They're doing a damned fine job without us, while we have done little but baselessly snipe at them from
>the sidelines.  They plan to continue to improve the state of the art, including the state of the art for accessibility.  If Peter is a fair example of a Federationist,
>the NFB has no desire to actually help them do it.  On the contrary, we want to cost them developers, customers, revenue, and all based on a pie-in-the-sky
>notion that there should never be any software we can't use.
>>>>
>>>> And dammit, if Adobe can't make Photoshop accessible, then they should be FORBIDDEN from releasing the program on Apple devices!
>>>>
>>>> I think someone estimated that 75% of Macs have Photoshop installed, by the way.
>>>>
>>>> Joseph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 02:30:38PM -0500, David Andrews wrote:
>>>>> Joseph, I think things should have, and could have been handled differently, and better, but on the other side, Apple needs to get a thicker skin.  The
>more successful they are, the more they will be criticized and questioned.  They can't have it both ways.  They can't make all the decisions and not expect
>any push back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> At 10:47 AM 9/5/2011, you wrote:
>>>>>> I know several Apple employees personally.  I cannot really say more, because Apple is a company full of secrets.  ANY communication that does not
>happen through official channels is subject to employees losing their jobs.  (Add that to the list of Apple as big brother.) There's no chance that we're going
>to lose the accessibility in Apple products, but the hostile relationship Peter Donahue and others want the NFB to have with Apple is now a fact of life.
>Apple will continue to work on accessibility, but at least those I've talked to don't have much love for the NFB for undermining and belittling their hard work.
>IMO, that's exactly what we did. Joseph On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:10:18AM -0500, Ray Foret Jr wrote: >Say,  How do you know for sure that the people
>at Apple are now unwilling to work with us?  I fear we are really going down the wrong road now.  My hope is that this situation is not irreparable.  What I
>intend to do with this is write and open letter to Dr. Maurer about this and include many of the points we discussed here.  Look, it seems to me that we can
>choose the more hostile relationship; in which case we stand a chance of loosing what accessibility to Apple we already have; or, we can choose to try to
>repair what we can and build a positive relationship and get working together on this.  IF we let Anger be the driving force behind what we do, we will
>destroy all the good work we've done so far.  I see us changing; and, frankly, I do not like it.  It seems to me that we're running the risk of loosing something
>very valuable as an organization.  I'm afraid that if we keep this up, we'll have happen to us what Dr. Jernigan warned us about in his banquet speech in
>1997. > >What are we becoming when we let this happen to us? > > >Sincerely, >The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!! >
>>>>>>> Now a very proud and happy Mac user!!! > >Skype name: barefootedray > >Facebook: >facebook.com/r ay.foretjr.1 > > > >On
>>>>>> Sep 4, 2011, at 8:00 AM, T. Joseph Carter wrote: > >> I can tell you that people in Apple's accessibility department have reacted negatively enough
>to BOTH of the resolutions that they are not the least bit inclined to work with us in the future. >> >> I believe the exact words, at least those I'm willing to
>quote here on the mailing list, were that the NFB can go to hell.  I won't say where this individual said we could stick our resolutions. >> >> Corporate policy
>remains 100% accessibility, but we have alienated Apple who is trying to do the right thing while we suck up to Google for their continued bad behavior. >>
>>> The resolutions were both seen at Apple, and they've already had an impact on Apple's willingness to work with us to further improve accessibility.  Just
>>>> not the impact anyone but Freedom Scientific was  hoping for. >>
>>>>>>>> But Apple is evil, so it doesn't matter.  And Google is awesome,
>>>>>> so who cares if they do anything accessibly?  Right?  Right? >> >> Joseph >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 06:17:46PM -0500, Ray Foret Jr
>wrote: >>> But, Peter, I ask you.  Would you be forever in a war camp mode?  Just think of the resolution concerning Google and the ones concerning
>Apple.  Why the disparity?  A fair question I think. >>> >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!
>>>>>>>>> >>> Now a very proud and happy Mac user!!! >>> >>> Skype name: barefootedray >>> >>> Facebook: >>> facebook.com/ray.foretjr.1 >>> >>>
>>>> On Sep 3, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Peter Donahue wrote: >>>> Hello Ray and everyone, >>>> >>>> The wording was fine.
>>>>>> It's the "Let's be grateful" attitude that makes folks >>>> feel otherwise. >>>> >>>> Peter Donahue >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>
>From: "Ray Foret Jr" <rforetjr at att.net> >>>> To: "Blind Talk Mailing List" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> >>>> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 3:23 PM >>>>
>Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] Resolution that didn't pass about apple >>>> >>>> >>>> Not with me Peter.  We need to strongly encourage people, not bitch at
>them.
>>>>>>>>>> We need to change the wording of the resolution so that it has
>>>>>> the desired >>>> effect without being bitchy about it.  There are times we need to use a >>>> hammer, and other times, a feather will do just as well.
>So, we commend >>>> Google for trying to be accessible but bitch at Apple even though they are >>>> more accessible than Google?  Tell me, is it
>because Google paid us money, >>>> (being a sponsor of our convention) and Apple didn't?  What kind of outfit >>>> are we when we stoop to that level?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the language, but, that's the way it is. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!! >>>> >>>> Now
>>>>>> a very proud and happy Mac user!!! >>>> >>>> Skype name: >>>> barefootedray >>>> >>>> Facebook: >>>> facebook.com/ray.foretjr.1
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 3, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Peter Donahue
>>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Cheryl and everyone, >>>>> >>>>>  The wording was fine with me. >>>>> >>>>> Peter Donahue >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original
>Message ----- >>>>> From: "cheryl echevarria" <cherylandmaxx at hotmail.com> >>>>> To: "Blind Talk Mailing List" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> >>>>> Sent:
>Saturday, September 03, 2011 12:25 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] Resolution that didn't pass about apple >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The issue was the
>wording of the Resolution, if I remember correctly, that >>>>> it was to harsh, and for it to pass that we all had to agree on the >>>>> wording.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> it has nothing to do with the Resolution as a whole,
>>>>>> but the wording of >>>>> the >>>>> resolution couldn't be passed, it can be brought to the floor of >>>>> convention >>>>> next year, to be voted
>on again >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Leading the Way in Independent Travel! >>>>> >>>>> Cheryl Echevarria >>>>> http://www.echevarriatravel.com >>>>>
>631-456-5394 >>>>> reservations at echevarriatravel.com >>>>> >>>>> Affiliated as an Independent Contractor with Superior Travel, located in >>>>>
>Baldwin, NY. www.superiortravel.com >>>>> >>>>> Affiliated as an Independent Contractor with Absolute Cruise & Travel, >>>>> Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "cheryl
>>>>>> echevarria" <cherylandmaxx at hotmail.com> >>>>> To: "Blind Talk Mailing List" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011
>12:58 PM >>>>> Subject: [Blindtlk] Resolution that didn't pass about apple >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Well maybe people on this list that voted against it
>elaborate as to why >>>>>> they voted against it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Leading the Way in Independent Travel!
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Cheryl Echevarria >>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.echevarriatravel.com >>>>>> 631-456-5394 >>>>>> reservations at echevarriatravel.com >>>>>> >>>>>> Affiliated as an Independent
>Contractor with Superior Travel, located in >>>>>> Baldwin, NY. www.superiortravel.com >>>>>> >>>>>> Affiliated as an Independent Contractor with
>Absolute Cruise & Travel, >>>>>> Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Ray
>>>>>> Foret Jr" <rforetjr at att.net> >>>>>> To: "Blind Talk Mailing List" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 4:56 PM >>>>>>
>Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] [Bulk] Re: a great article >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah yes, I have a recording of the stream of that
>>>>>> particular days' >>>>>>> events. I must say, that was quite an episode. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>> The Constantly Barefooted
>Ray!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now a very proud and happy Mac user!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skype name: >>>>>>> barefootedray >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Facebook: >>>>>>> facebook.com/ray.foretjr.1 >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sep 2, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Marsha Drenth
>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An example of not all of us following like zombies, at the national >>>>>>>> convention. A resolution about apple. Don't
>quite remember the >>>>>>>> wordage, but >>>>>>>> it did not pass. More than half of the floor voted against it. If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> at the convention you would know what I am
>>>>>> talking about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was one of the many who voted against the resolution. I didn't think >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> was fair, and not
>something the NFB needed to make an resolution for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Others are welcome to chime in here... >>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marsha >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>> Behalf Of Bryan Schulz >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 10:19 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Blind Talk Mailing List >>>>>>>> Subject: Re:
>>>>>> [Blindtlk] a great article >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> no point in rehashing the lost funds as they have been forgiven in the
>>>>>>>>> midwest. >>>>>>>> i was the only one to push the issue and was blasted for it. it's >>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>> like that which make the nfb taste
>bitter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not all of us just follow in line like zombies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd like to see more examples of that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>Bryan Schulz >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> From: "Marsha
>>>>>> Drenth" <marsha.drenth at gmail.com> >>>>>>>> To: "'Blind Talk Mailing List'" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 01,
>2011 8:14 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] a great article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This thread is very tiring, very
>>>>>> frustrating and gets us no where. So >>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NFB members never ask the tough questions, and look the
>>>>>> other way. >>>>>>>>> What >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> the illegal behavior your speaking of? I am pretty sure if there was >>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> illegal behavior, we just as much any other person would ask the >>>>>>>>> "tough" >>>>>>>>> questions. Not all of us just follow in line like
>zombies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If your so anti-NFB, why do you hang out here. Your welcome to leave >>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>> time. We would rather
>you go away. So our list can go back to being >>>>>>>>> constructive and productive. Oh wait that is right, we are all lyres, >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>
>allow illegal behavior, and follow like zombies. You can think what >>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want. But this skirting around subjects does nothing. We
>>>>>> are not >>>>>>>>> going to >>>>>>>>> change our minds about what we think. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Marsha >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From:
>>>>>> blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org >>>>>>>>> [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Bryan Schulz >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday,
>September 01, 2011 7:07 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Blind Talk Mailing List >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re:
>>>>>> [Blindtlk] a great article >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no, i'm not accusing anyone, the event already happened. the point is don't ask tough questions unless you have
>>>>>> thick skin. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bryan Schulz >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> From: "T. Joseph Carter"
><carter.tjoseph at gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> To: "Blind Talk Mailing List" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:49 PM
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] a great article >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I see, my mistake. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>> aren't taking pot shots at the ACB without facts to back it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You >>>>>>>>>> are taking pot shots at the NFB without
>>>>>> facts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It takes a lot of guts to come into an organization and start >>>>>>>>>> accusing >>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members of vaguely illegal activities without offering
>>>>>> any specifics >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> evidence.  But I'm sure doing so will get you all the consideration >>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> due. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And with that, I
>>>>>> think I'm about finished with the discussion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joseph - KF7QZC >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 01,
>2011 at 05:36:54PM -0500, Bryan Schulz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> no, i'm not talking about the acb but the
>>>>>> point still applies. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bryan Schulz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "T.
>>>>>> Joseph Carter" >>>>>>>>>>> <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> To: "Blind Talk Mailing List" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent:
>Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:09 PM >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] a great article >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest if that
>helps you maximize your involvement with and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit >>>>>>>>>>>> from an organization, you find
>>>>>> another organization. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps though, we don't want to go down this road, or at least >>>>>>>>>>>> not in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this fashion.  The ACB has in the past allowed its
>>>>>> members to make >>>>>>>>>>>> baseless, unsupported, and uncontested claims of illegal behavior >>>>>>>>>>>> by the >>>>>>>>>>>> NFB.  It
>was rather off-putting, and I'd have thought so even if I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>> not a Federationist!  Indeed, it
>>>>>> seems always to be so, in any >>>>>>>>>>>> organization, whether or not I have any affiliation with anybody. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If
>there's something new and recent that needs to be discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding >>>>>>>>>>>> the ACB, we should probably do
>>>>>> it, but in a new thread with the >>>>>>>>>>>> relevant >>>>>>>>>>>> details.  If it's a rehash of old wrongdoings by former officers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> know how
>>>>>> useful it would be to debate today.  It's like discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> questionable action taken by Janet Reno
>>>>>> while she worked for Bill >>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton. Anyone personally affected would find it relevant, but >>>>>>>>>>>> society
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a whole wouldn't be interested today. >>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes the bad guys get away with it.  Usually when
>>>>>> the good >>>>>>>>>>>> guys >>>>>>>>>>>> don't stand up to them until its too late.  But that takes me off >>>>>>>>>>>> on my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own tangent. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Joseph - KF7QZC >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at
>>>>>> 03:53:02PM -0500, Bryan Schulz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> there should be at least one more. #16. Don't ask tough questions even when a member
>>>>>> does something >>>>>>>>>>>>> questionable and probably illegal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bryan Schulz >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Nusbaum" <dotkid.nusbaum at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "NABS
>>>>>> list" <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>; "Blind Talk list" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>; "Gary Legates" <gary.legates at comcast.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:02 PM Subject: [Blindtlk] a great article >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I try to learn more about both organizations, I
>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscribed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both the Braille Monitor and the Braille Forum.  The Monitor, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know, is the Federation (NFB's)  publication and the
>>>>>> Forum is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Council (or ACB's) publication.  I found a great article in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> July's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Forum entitled "Fifteen Ways to Maximize your ACB
>>>>>> Membership," >>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fifteen tips on how to take advantage of all ACB (or any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for that matter) has to offer.  I think this could also apply to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federation and to NABS or any other
>special-interest division,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some good advice.  To be
>>>>>> accurate, I added "or NFB" in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parentheses to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some parts of the article.  I have pasted the
>>>>>> article below. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts on this? I promise I'm not trying to force the ACB down >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throats; in fact, I'm a Federationist in nature, but
>>>>>> want to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about both.  Here is the article. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15 WAYS TO MAXIMIZE
>YOUR ACB (or NFB) MEMBERSHIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Kenneth Semien Sr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All too often, people join organizations without
>>>>>> taking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantage of the opportunity to truly know intricate details of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mission, and operating practices.  This can very
>>>>>> well result in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lack >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participation and could ultimately result in a
>>>>>> decision to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> forfeit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could have been the ideal vehicle to enhance your
>>>>>> life, build >>>>>>>>>>>>>> great >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships and effectively share personal skills and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abilities that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make an enormous difference.  In
>>>>>> an effort to encourage you to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explore >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful efforts of ACB, I have included the tips
>listed below >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you in being all you can be and help you join with
>>>>>> others whose >>>>>>>>>>>>>> skills >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complement yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.  Be inquisitive and don't hesitate to ask
>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.  Become familiar with the history, mission, and purpose by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewing it often enough to be able to
>repeat it to others.  In >>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone may realize that this is the organization
>>>>>> they have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.  Make a personal commitment to identify ways to
>>>>>> get involved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.  Find out who the officers are and become acquainted with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them and their roles and
>responsibilities, as well as members >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively participating in
>>>>>> events and projects associated with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.  Make your skills
>>>>>> and abilities known to leaders of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chapter, affiliate, or the president of our organization. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6.  Make every effort
>to participate in chapter, state affiliate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and national meetings, seminars, conferences and
>>>>>> conventions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7.  Inquire about available committees you may be able to serve >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on to assist the organization in
>achieving its goals and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> objectives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seek >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to join committees that allow
>>>>>> you to utilize your skills and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abilities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most effective and efficient
>>>>>> manner. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8.  If you have access to the Internet, sign up for up-to-date >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news and announcements from all levels
>of our organization.  Ask >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> president >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or member to tell you how to take advantage of this option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9.  Listen to or read publications/newsletters distributed by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization on all levels.  This is one of the best
>>>>>> ways to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful resources, access inspirational stories, scholarships,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> awards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> upcoming
>>>>>> projects and events. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10.  Identify special-interest groups that meet your personal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs.  These groups provide
>you the opportunity to network with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharing common interests, such as your prior or
>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>>>>>> occupation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hobbies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> health concerns and so much more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11.
>>>>>> Obtain your own copy of the constitution and bylaws to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the agreed-upon operating
>>>>>> practices and procedures of our >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12.  Prepare for future involvement as an officer by
>>>>>> becoming >>>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar with officer titles and duties.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13.  Participate in conference calls to build your
>>>>>> knowledge, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as membership focus calls, periodic Office Hours conference >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ACB president, committee calls, and
>>>>>> special-interest group >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14.  Explore the web sites of your chapter, state affiliate and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our national organization.  You may locate
>>>>>> information on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> web site >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you didn't think of inquiring about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 15.  Pay your annual dues faithfully and encourage others to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more you know and the
>>>>>> more you become involved, the more you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will begin to know that you have joined a phenomenal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> organization
>that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> continuing to grow.  Have a great ACB (or NFB) adventure! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris Nusbaum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The real problem of blindness is not the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> blindtlk mailing list
>>>>> blindtlk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindtlk:
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> blindtlk mailing list
>>>> blindtlk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindtlk:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/rforetjr%40att.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>blindtlk mailing list
>>>blindtlk at nfbnet.org
>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindtlk:
>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>blindtlk mailing list
>>blindtlk at nfbnet.org
>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindtlk:
>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blindtlk mailing list
>blindtlk at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindtlk:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com