[Electronics-talk] accessible TV shows and how do we fix ourTV's to get the audio?
Ray Foret Jr
rforetjr at att.net
Tue Jun 19 18:04:32 UTC 2012
Not to mention which, there's the Narrator coming out soon. IF Insignia can at least make a decent go of it, what's the cable box maker's excuse? Now, remember, I am going to put up a recording of my out of the box experience with that radio. Will it be perfect? Most likely not. Will I have a long list of things I reckon they could improve? Most likely so. Is it a good first effort? Well, as to that, I shall soon know.
Sincerely,
The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!
Now a very proud and happy Mac user!!!
Skype name:
barefootedray
On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Steve Jacobson wrote:
> Gerald,
>
> You know, I cannot honestly say you are completely wrong in what you are saying here and what you have
> said in other posts. Our accessibility in general is a real struggle these days and I see us making
> progress in some areas and sliding back in others. My problem with what you are posting is that you are
> not suggesting any alternative approach that will yield progress. I think it probably is all right for
> us to try to be realistic
> and see that no single law is going to make everything perfect, and it probably is reasonable for people
> to realize that complaints won't often matter in the short run.
>
> But what then do we do about it all? We can take your approach and follow the old line that "there's no
> need to worry because nothin's gonna turn out right," and spend our time complaining to each other and
> making sure that nobody thinks any efforts are worth while and gradually move back to our propper places
> in the rocking chairs in the back rooms of our family homes. Giving us a dose of reality is fine as far
> as I am concerned, but taking the approach that if something isn't perfect it isn't worth anything just
> doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Filing complaints and passing laws won't make things perfect, but that work does help. Cellphones are
> not as accessible as they should be, but they are much more accessible than they were ten years ago even
> without the I Phone. I simply don't believe that would happen without the pressure we have tried to
> apply, as imperfect as it is. I simply do not believe that Apple's management got up one morning and
> said "Let's invest millions of dollars in our products so blind people can use them." Certainly there
> were probably some good intentions, I don't deny that, but laws have given us pretty good leverage in
> terms of how accessible devices must be to be used by the education system and our government. Apple
> could probably have been kept out of the education market without accessibility and they realized that.
> This doesn't mean they don't deserve credit for what they are doing, rather it is only that laws and
> complaints do have some effect.
>
> Until we have effective artificial vision, I don't believe that we will ever achieve 100% accessibility.
> However, if we work at it, we won't be as far behind as we will be if we give up and spend our time
> telling each other how bad we have it and how hopeless any attempts to improve accessibility are.
>
> So why are we worse off than the deaf or those in wheelchairs? I would agree with the poster who said
> that we are left out more. There are several reasons. First, there tends to be fewer of us so we have
> to make up for our small numbers by making noise. However, beyond that, accessibility for us is not
> always easy to define. Generally, accessibility for a wheelchair can be defined through standards that
> involve specific measurements. Much of the accessibility achieved by persons who are deaf involves
> captioning which is pretty much converting the spoken word to text. Even interpreting is basically
> converting what is spoken directly into another form. Our accessibility involves taking a more robust
> sense, that of vision, and converting the information received to a less robust sense, hearing or touch.
> This means there has to be built-in interpretation, or filtering of information that is not immediately
> of value. This makes it harder to define accessibility in a legal sense or even in our own minds
> sometimes. I have used software or visited websites that I'd have to say are accessible but were not
> very easy for me to use. It makes it harder to define exactly what we need and does make it harder for
> us to get something in place that guarantees accessibility. Some problems are more complex than they
> appear on the surface. For example, some cable boxes don't display information as characters but rather
> display information as screen shots that are really pictures. In some cases, cable systems have more
> bandwidth for sending information than intelligence in their boxes so sending a picture of a program
> schedule that the cable box just sends to the TV works for them but really complicates accessibility.
> Of course, this isn't always the case, but it illustrates the point that problems are not always easy to
> solve.
>
> I think that in some cases you are mixing the sources of problems. For example, you talk about the fact
> that we don't have any audio only receivers and that we lost them when TV went from analog to digital.
> While that was true, I do not believe that audio-only receivers were ever mandated and were not always
> available for analog TV signals. There is nothing about digital TV that precludes an audio only
> receiver. Some manufacturer has to be convinced that it is worth their investment to do it. Some of
> these digital to analog converters are most of the way there. I really don't think you can even say
> that our problems with current TV interfaces have a lot to do with digital TV versus Analog TV. It has
> more to do with the visual on-screen interfaces that televisions are using now and were often used even
> on analog TV's. To oppose digital TV because it would mean the end of our audio receivers was a loosing
> proposition from the start.
>
> What this all means is that you are right, we're not going to get accessibility by passing a law or
> filing a complaint. But I think it is pretty clear that we will get more by doing that than we'll get
> by complaining to each other and belittling any attempts made to improve the situation. . It is going
> to be an on-going struggle, and we'll win some and we'll loose some, but keeping up the pressure will
> get us further than doing nothing at all anc being critical of those who try.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Steve Jacobson
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:56:25 -0400, Gerald Levy wrote:
>
>
>> Well, here's the big problem with filing complaints with the FCC. Aside the
>> fact that they are ineffective, the process involves completing a slew of
>> paperwork, which, of course requires sighted assistance. So if you don't
>> happen to have sighted assistance on hand to help you fill out the
>> appropriate forms, how are you gonna file a complaint? Remember when the
>> conversion from analog TV to digital TV was first proposed? The blind
>> advocacy groups filed complaints with the FCC contending that the change
>> would be deleterious to blind consumers because they would no longer be able
>> to receive the audio portion of the TV signla on simple, portable radios.
>> And the new digital TV sets would not be accessible to blind users. Did the
>> FCC listen? Of course not. They went ahead and rammed this change down our
>> throats anyway three years ago. Today, we blind consumers are worse off
>> with digital TV than we were with analog TV. At least in the analog days,
>> TV sets were somewhat less complicated and easier to use. Today, digital TV
>> is an accessibility nightmare for most blind consumers. So excuse me if I
>> sound cynical about the FCC taking our complaints seriously.
>
>> Gerald
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Christopher Chaltain" <chaltain at gmail.com>
>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] accessible TV shows and how do we fix
>> ourTV's to get the audio?
>
>
>>> I guess I don't follow the plight of other disabilities as much as some,
>>> but my impression is that each disability has it's challenges, and I
>>> don't fee like we're getting ignored more than any other disability.
>>> Don't forget, we'll be able to take advantage of the Telecommunications
>>> Act as much as any other disability if we work with our advocacy groups
>>> or file our own complaints with our cable company and the FCC. I'd
>>> suggest that if people really feel this strongly about the plight of the
>>> blind that they join one of the advocacy groups and lend their voice to
>>> others to help improve things.
>>>
>>> On 18/06/12 23:08, cheez wrote:
>>>> Amen, Sista!
>>>> Vince
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jenny Keller" <jlperdue3 at gmail.com>
>>>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>>>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 7:23 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] accessible TV shows and how do we fix
>>>> ourTV's to get the audio?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You know,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm coming into this conversation a little late in the game, and maybe
>>>>> it's not politically correct, but if it were the deaf, or someone in a
>>>>> wheelchair and they were getting screwed as bad as we are, and left
>>>>> out of as much stuff as we do, you know there would be a putty party
>>>>> on the national news and every local news from here to hell and back
>>>>> about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frankly, it really makes me furious about how much we get the shaft in
>>>>> this country.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know, we have it better than most countries, but equal access should
>>>>> be equal access to disabled services regardless of what disability you
>>>>> have.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has always felt to me, that in the good old United States, where
>>>>> all are supposed to be equal, blind people get the least amount of
>>>>> help and accessibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, but that's just my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jenny
>>>>> On Jun 16, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Gerald Levy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This whole situation is a real mess. So the networks are going to
>>>>>> increase the number of prime time hours dedicated to audio described
>>>>>> programming. But if you are blind and you have cable TV or one of the
>>>>>> satellite providers, this is of little consolation because there is
>>>>>> no way to access the SAP channel unless you have sighted help to
>>>>>> navigate the onscreen menus of the converter box to turn it on or
>>>>>> off. Presently, none of the cable or satellite providers has any
>>>>>> plans to offer accessible converter boxes, so once again, we blind
>>>>>> consumers are getting screwed over while the advocacy groups pat
>>>>>> themselves on the backs for increasing the amount of available audio
>>>>>> described programming. Imagine if the deaf had to rely strictly on
>>>>>> audible clues to turn the closed caption decoder on or off. You can
>>>>>> bet their advocacy groups would scream bloody murder to the FCC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gerald
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gerald
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jenny Keller" <jlperdue3 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>>>>>> <electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:55 PM
>>>>>> Subject: [Electronics-talk] accessible TV shows and how do we fix our
>>>>>> TV's to get the audio?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As the subject says. Most of the TV's menus are not accessible, so
>>>>>>> how will we get our TV's to the proper settings?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is the SAP thing, you can't leave that on all the time,
>>>>>>> because if it's not available in audio description, it turns in to
>>>>>>> the spanish option. besides, again, you can't access the menus by
>>>>>>> sight it you don't have any.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> also, the article said that there would be symbols and sounds, well,
>>>>>>> the symbols is a stupid idea cause if you are blind, and/or visually
>>>>>>> impaired, how will you see the symbols? that's kind of stupid in my
>>>>>>> opinion, the symbols thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like they have a lot of bugs to get out before July first,
>>>>>>> and I've seen nothing on the networks saying anything about that,
>>>>>>> and believe me, I'm a TV junky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JMO,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jenny
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Electronics-talk mailing list
>>>>>>> Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>>> for Electronics-talk:
>>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/bwaylimited%40verizon.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Electronics-talk mailing list
>>>>>> Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>>> Electronics-talk:
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/jlperdue3%40gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Electronics-talk mailing list
>>>>> Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>> Electronics-talk:
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/cheez%40cox.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Electronics-talk mailing list
>>>> Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> Electronics-talk:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/chaltain%40gmail.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Electronics-talk mailing list
>>> Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> Electronics-talk:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/bwaylimited%40verizon.net
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Electronics-talk mailing list
>> Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Electronics-talk:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Electronics-talk mailing list
> Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Electronics-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/rforetjr%40att.net
More information about the Electronics-Talk
mailing list