[Electronics-talk] Effective accessibility advocacy [was "Re: tv's"]

Mon Apr 16 10:30:09 UTC 2012

And what do you propose as an alternative? I claim working with
companies, passing legislation, filing complaints under the ADA and
other statutes, signing petitions, pursuing law suits and so on will
have much more effect on increasing the accessibility of TV's and other
products than doing nothing other than complaining how hopeless it all is.

No executives are going to be personally prosecuted for violating the
ADA or other accessibility laws. This has more to do with corporate
legislation than a perceived indifference towards accessibility
legislation. There are very few laws where an executive of a corporation
can be prosecuted personally.

As I said above, a lot can be done to make electronics more accessible
without sending executives to jail. Whether you want to admit it or not,
or do the research yourself, the blindness advocacy organizations have
done a lot to enforce the ADA and other statues. using Google it isn't
hard to come up with how many complaints have been filed under the ADA
and how many of them have been successful. Furthermore, web sites and
applications like AOL, Google and so on are all now more accessible than
they would be without the blindness advocacy groups and the legislation
they've passed. Ditto for book readers, cell phones and so on.

Of course, no matter how strong the legislation is, nothing will come
from it if people just sit on their hands and complain about how
hopeless it is. For any legislation to be successful, people will need
to report violations and participate in the process.

On 15/04/12 15:31, Gerald Levy wrote:
> 
> The problem with these accessibility initiatives is that they lack real
> substance.  What if a manufacture refuses to abide by the law and make
> their electronic products blind accessible?  Are their executives going
> to be aggressivley prosecuted and thrown in jail?  Of course not.  Their
> companies will merely be forced to pay nominal fines and go about their
> business. Nobody in this country has ever served jail time for violating
> the ADA, so why should blind consumers expect electronic products to
> become more accessible just because some weak legislation mandates it? 
> The blindness advocacy organizations love to pat themselves on the back
> for getting such legislation passed, but when it comes to enforcing it,
> they have been largely ineffective.
> 
> Gerald
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Chaltain"
> <chaltain at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] tv's
> 
> 
>> My understanding of this thread is that you're screwed if you're a blind
>> TV watcher in the US because:
>> * Americans aren't as creative as they used to be.
>> * American corporations put profit ahead of solving public problems,
>> unlike corporations elsewhere in the world.
>> * More and more TV's are coming from Chinese companies now, who don't
>> care about American consumers and who don't care about making accessible
>> products.
>>
>> Note that I don't agree with any of the above, and I'd rather not see
>> such political and unfounded statements made on a list intended to talk
>> about the accessibility of consumer electronics, although I understand
>> everyone has an opinion and the right to voice it. I also don't agree
>> with the implication that we're living in a time that's so bleak or
>> hopeless for the blind TV watcher. Technology and legislation is in
>> place now where we could see a dramatic increase in the accessibility of
>> smart TV's and advanced set top boxes. Of course, we won't see these
>> improvements if we just assume that it's hopeless and don't even try.
>>
>> On 15/04/12 12:46, Jim Barbour wrote:
>>> I just started reading this thread. What does this message have to do
>>> with tvs or electronics?
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Apr 15, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Jude DaShiell <jdashiel at shellworld.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So many examples in fact that there isn't a single major bank everyone
>>>> of the State's attorney's general doesn't want to prosecute.  The only
>>>> reason that hasn't happened is because of ongoing Federal
>>>> investigations.  Guess how many of those major national banks are
>>>> actually going to get prosecuted.  I'm pretty sure it will end up being
>>>> zero.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, Christopher Chaltain wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In a world that's getting flatter and flatter, I guess you could
>>>>> say the
>>>>> US is losing it's edge in creativity, but IMHO, that's more because
>>>>> with
>>>>> businesses becoming more and more international, it's harder to
>>>>> tell and
>>>>> less important to determine where creativity comes from
>>>>> geographically.
>>>>> With respect to these TV's, it's true they're being distributed in the
>>>>> UK and Ireland first, but how do we know the technology didn't come
>>>>> from
>>>>> somewhere else, and this was nothing but a marketing decision?
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding of the history of corporations is a bit different. I
>>>>> don't recall ever hearing that the original charter for
>>>>> corporations was
>>>>> solving public problems, and I don't see that discuss at
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_companies. In fact, the US
>>>>> revolution was due in some part to the tight link between English
>>>>> corporations and the abuses they were allowed to undertake due to
>>>>> their
>>>>> close links with the English government. That's why the original US
>>>>> corporations were so business focused, and their links to the
>>>>> government
>>>>> were kept tenuous.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never been to business school in the US or elsewhere, but I
>>>>> suspect
>>>>> that most corporations and especially international or transnational
>>>>> corporations work towards the same goals. The US doesn't have a
>>>>> monopoly
>>>>> on greed, corruption or the desire to make money in a capitalist
>>>>> economy. Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of US corporations
>>>>> engaged in philanthropic missions.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14/04/12 18:14, Jude DaShiell wrote:
>>>>>> Corporate morays differ in America from other locations on this
>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>> In some countries a little of the original purpose for
>>>>>> corporations is
>>>>>> chartered to solve public problems.  Enriching investors was a third
>>>>>> priority behind perpetuation of the corporations themselves.  The
>>>>>> first
>>>>>> thing anyone going to Business School here in America hears about
>>>>>> corporations is that their purpose is to enrich their investors.  Go
>>>>>> figure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012, JULIE PHILLIPSON wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AT LEAST A START.  I HOPE IT CONTINUES AND EXPANDS TO OTHER
>>>>>>> DEVICES AS IT IS
>>>>>>> SUPPOSE TO.ITS INTERESTING THEY STARTED IN THE UK, BUT THEN THE U
>>>>>>> S HAS LOST
>>>>>>> ITS EDGE IN CREATIVITY.
>>>>>>> THIS IS G----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr. Denise M Robinson"
>>>>>>> <deniserob at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>>>>>>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 6:08 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] tv's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is the site for talking TVs--just open this link
>>>>>>>> http://www.rnib.org.uk/livingwithsightloss/tvradiofilm/tvradiofilmnews/Pages/talking_television_panasonic.aspx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:25 PM, William Vandervest
>>>>>>>> <timelord09 at att.net>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are there any tv's thet have accessible menues or home theater
>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>> with them?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Jude <jdashiel-at-shellworld-dot-net>
>>>> <http://www.shellworld.net/~jdashiel/nj.html>

-- 
Christopher (CJ)
chaltain at gmail.com