[gui-talk] [nfbcs] Response to "The Hands That Feed"

[Mike Freeman]

Ray:

Thinking historically and politically for a moment, sometimes a revolution
comes when conditions become a bit better than they were at their worst.
This can be said both of the United States Revolution and that of the former
Soviet Union. In the former, the Stamp Act and its other oppressive and
stupid counterparts had been repealed by the British Parliament. But it was
too late. Same goes for the Soviet Union: industrial conditions (if not the
plight of the World War I Russian soldier) had become better and slightly
less exploitive than they were in the late nineteenth- and early
twentieth-centuries. But again it was too late, at least for the march, 1917
revolution that put karensky into power.

In like fashion, many (though obviously by no means an overwhelming
majority) felt that Apple had done so well that we (NFB) could and should
expect more of it than of other companies such as Microsoft and Google.
Whether you agree with this or not is immaterial; I'm not trying to argue
the case here but merely to elucidate motive.

Put simply: we expect more (rightly or wrongly) of Jesus than we do of
Lucifer.

Mike
 

-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Ray Foret Jr
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 5:14 AM
To: Discussion of the Graphical User Interface, GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] [nfbcs] Response to "The Hands That Feed"

Thanks for your response.  mind you, Tara, I was not implying the NFB was
not democratic.  I remember the debate over both resolutions; via the
stream.  That, however, was not what really bothered me the most about all
this.  Had the Google resolution had the same wording as the Apple
resolutions, I would have absolutely nothing to say on the matter.  But, as
it was said by a participant in the debate who presumed to anticipate what
might be thought by at least some Apple folks, "We want worked with, not
bitched at!".  Now, let me state again.  I have no quarrel with what the
resolution intended, but, gentler language would have won passage I think of
both resolutions.


Sincerely,
The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!

Now a very proud and happy Mac user!!!

Skype name:
barefootedray

Facebook:
facebook.com/ray.foretjr.1



On Feb 26, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Tara Prakash wrote:

> Dear Ray and others.
> NFB is a very demoocratic organization. To those who were not following
closely, or not following the resolution committee debates at all, I wanted
to remind that both these resolutions had more debate, some time very
animated one, before one of them passed and the other was voted down. The
resolutions in NFB conventions are not often voted down because they are
written with great care and keeping the NFB philosophy in mind. The fact
that one resolution got approved and the fell proves that NFB members are
ambivalent about apple accessibility. Whereas it is commendible that apple
has enabled accessibility on devices ouot f the box, sometimes it gets
frustrating when a device that we are championing as accessible, by awards
for instance, allows apps on its platform that are not accessible.
> When it comes to accessibility of apple devices, we can't say that's
enough. Singling out Apple for one of the resolutions was wrong in  one way,
but correct in the sense that apple being the market leader at that time it
would be emulated by other manufacturers. I agree with Ray the language was
too strong but the language used did not become the bone of contention as
the debate was focussed on the spirit of the resolution, which was whether
Apple is doing enough foor making its platfoorm completely accessible.
> We, like Apple, know that there are different voices in the blind
community, and when it comes to NFB, hte orgainzation allows reasonable
dissent and a lot of the members showed it publicly when it came to the
resolutions about Apple.
> I just wanted to add a perspective, without disagreeing with anyone n this
thread.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> TaraPrakash
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Foret Jr" <rforetjr at att.net>
> To: "Discussion of the Graphical User Interface,GUI Talk Mailing List"
<gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 12:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] [nfbcs] Response to "The Hands That Feed"
> 
> 
>> Curtis, I must commend you for having the guts to come on here and tell
the truth about what really happened.  With respect to the resolution which
the NFB passed at the 2011 convention, I must strongly disagree; not so much
with what your resolution intended to do; but rather, with the condemn and
deplore language you employed.  Frankly, I felt it was unacceptable and
rather below the usually high standards of the NFB.  I want you to know that
my being a Mac user has nothing what so ever to do with this opinion.  I
feel you might have done better to take the language in the google
resolution which followed it and use it in the Apple resolution.  But, to
condemn and deplore?  No sir, frankly, I felt that was out of line.  Barring
that, however, I cannot argue with what was intended in the resolution
itself in so far as the objective went.
>> 
>> Now, a word about Hofstader
>> 's blog.  I note that he tends to side rather more with the ACB position;
at least in so far as the blog post is concerned.  Now, this leads me in to
something I am personally very uncomfortable talking about; but, I think
it's high time it got aired out.
>> 
>> What really bothers me Curtis, is this.  Many Apple users come down hard
on the NFB; and, at times, it is deserved and sometimes it is not.  One time
I felt it was very much deserved was the debacle that was the June 2009
"Braille Monitor" article on the Macintosh.  Now I must say, that was a
sorry piece, and, frankly, it deserved the condemnation of Apple users.
However, there is another side to it; and, this is the part that really
bothers me.  When the "Braille Monitor" published an article in December of
2009 retracting much of what had been in the article in June, (a very fine
article the December one was too.), I expected that Apple users would allow
some leeway and cut the NFB some well deserved slack; but, no.  They never
gave the NFB the credit that it damn well deserved for the December article
and all the things which were said in it.  Indeed, such was the visceral
hatred I saw toward the NFB for a few days on one of the Apple lists I was
on, I almost departed f
 rom that list in discussed.  It seemed to me that they took rather too much
pleasure in hating the NFB for the sake of hating the NFB.  They jump all
over the NFB when it was deserved for one bad Monitor article; but, they
won't give the NFB the well deserved credit for correcting honest mistakes.
>> I'm sure you can imagine how I sometimes felt; an NFB Mac user and thus a
fish rather out of water in two respects.  ONe, I am a Mac user and love it.
Two.  I'm a member of the NFB and love it.  That's why it pained me to see
the NFB pass the one resolution it did.  I was happy to see the other one
fail; and, it damn well deserved to fail.  I sincerely hoep you don't take
what I say personally; but, if you do, that's your choice and I have nothing
to say about it what-so-ever.  I do very much appreciate your coming forward
like this because it gives me an opening to get off my chest something that,
to speak quite candidly, has been bothering me for quite a little while now.
>> thank you.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!!
>> 
>> Now a very proud and happy Mac user!!!
>> 
>> Skype name:
>> barefootedray
>> 
>> Facebook:
>> facebook.com/ray.foretjr.1
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 25, 2012, at 8:13 PM, David Andrews wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: "Curtis Chong" <curtischong at earthlink.net>
>>>> To: <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
>>>> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:19:57 -0600
>>>> Subject: [nfbcs] Response to "The Hands That Feed"
>>>> 
>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2012, Chris Hofstader posted a blog entitled
"The
>>>> Hands That Feed."  This post can be found at
>>>> http://www.hofstader.com/node/10.  For the convenience of the reader, I
am
>>>> including the text of Hofstader's blog post at the end of this article.
>>>> 
>>>> I will not try to summarize what Hofstader was trying to say in his
blog
>>>> post.  It speaks for itself.  However, I feel that a number of
inaccurate
>>>> statements made in his blog post must be addressed in order to set the
>>>> record straight.
>>>> 
>>>>               Hofstader says, "Last July, the National Federation of
the
>>>> Blind (NFB)at its summer convention passed a resolution 'condemning and
>>>> deploring' Apple for the sin of not requiring that everything sold in
its
>>>> app store be fully accessible."
>>>> 
>>>> In fact, the National Federation of the Blind, during its 2011
convention,
>>>> passed one and only one resolution regarding Apple.  Resolution 2011-03
>>>> resolved that the National Federation of the Blind "express its
frustration
>>>> and deep disappointment with Apple for allowing the release of
applications
>>>> that contain icons, buttons, and other controls that cannot be
identified by
>>>> the blind user of VoiceOver, thereby rendering them nonvisually
>>>> inaccessible."  It further resolved that the NFB "urge Apple, in the
>>>> strongest possible terms, to work with the National Federation of the
Blind
>>>> to create and enforce a set of requirements for accessibility that
will, at
>>>> a minimum, compel application developers to label buttons, menus,
icons,
>>>> selection lists, checkboxes, and other controls so that VoiceOver users
can
>>>> identify and operate them."  Resolutions passed at the 2011 NFB
convention
>>>> can be found at
>>>> http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/documents/word/Resolutions_2011.doc.
>>>> 
>>>> Regarding Resolution 2011-03, many people have asked me why Apple, an
>>>> acknowledged leader in accessibility, was singled out for criticism
while
>>>> other companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Adobe (who clearly lag
behind
>>>> Apple in terms of built-in accessibility to products and who justly
deserve
>>>> criticism) were not included in the resolution.  As one of the authors
of
>>>> Resolution 2011-03, I would say that it was not a matter of singling
out
>>>> Apple for special criticism.  We have been trying for years to get
Microsoft
>>>> and Adobe to mandate accessibility to their products, and so far, we
have
>>>> not been as successful as we would like.  It seemed reasonable to me to
try
>>>> to get Apple, a relative newcomer to the field, to come to the table
and
>>>> work with us to build some minimal accessibility into products allowed
into
>>>> the App Store.  While it could be argued that terms such as
"disappointment"
>>>> and "frustration" might seem a bit harsh, I felt that Apple needed to
know
>>>> how strongly we felt about the need to mandate basic accessibility to
icons,
>>>> buttons, and other controls.  Also, I reasoned that since Apple already
>>>> imposed some pretty strong requirements on app developers that other
>>>> companies did not, why not call upon Apple to add accessibility to the
mix.
>>>> 
>>>> Hofstader says, "Curtis Chong, head of NFB in Computer Science, the
portion
>>>> of NFB responsible for computing issues decided to threaten people at
Apple
>>>> with a resolution of condemnation if they didn't attend the convention.
...
>>>> It seems that Curtis did this because his feelings were hurt or some
other
>>>> completely childish motivation for biting the hand that feeds us best."
>>>> 
>>>> For the life of me, I cannot understand how my dealings with Apple
could be
>>>> regarded as "threatening."  Last year, as President of the NFB in
Computer
>>>> Science, I did ask Apple to speak at our annual meeting, and I clearly
>>>> stated that there should be a minimum set of accessibility features
which I
>>>> thought should be required.  When I was informed that Apple would not
be
>>>> coming to the NFB convention, I wrote back saying:
>>>> 
>>>>               "I am more than a little surprised that Apple would not
want
>>>> to expand upon the positive interactions that occurred between it and
the
>>>> National Federation of the Blind at the Federation's convention last
year.
>>>> At that convention, Apple received a $10,000 Jacob Bolotin award and
>>>> garnered good will from convention participants because of its
participation
>>>> at the convention.  In short, Apple had a presence at our convention,
and
>>>> this was duly noted and very much appreciated by me and other
Federation
>>>> leaders."
>>>> 
>>>> I also said:
>>>> 
>>>>               "We acknowledge the many good things that have been
>>>> accomplished by Apple that have benefitted the blind, but we believe
that
>>>> ongoing dialog between Apple and the organized blind must be active and
>>>> continuous so that a meaningful exchange of viewpoints can occur."
>>>> 
>>>> Again, while we may not always agree with the fine folks at Apple, it
is
>>>> hard to imagine how the language above can be regarded as
"threatening."
>>>> There certainly is no indication that resolutions condemning and
deploring
>>>> the company would be considered at the convention if they chose not to
come.
>>>> 
>>>>               Regarding a meeting that took place at Microsoft in
>>>> September of 2004, Hofstader says: "I can't recall what angered Curtis
that
>>>> time but he took all of the correspondence and lots of other data
covered by
>>>> the NDA (nondisclosure agreement which everyone at the meeting did
sign) and
>>>> dumped it out onto the Internet."
>>>> 
>>>> Hofstader's memory of events that took place in 2004 are markedly
different
>>>> from mine.  I certainly never "dumped it out onto the Internet."  Yes,
I did
>>>> provide Dr. Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind,
with
>>>> a written summary of the meeting, and yes, that summary was indeed
published
>>>> in the December, 2004 edition of the Braille Monitor.  In my letter to
Dr.
>>>> Maurer, I took great pains not to reveal anything that was specifically
>>>> flagged as a nondisclosure item, and I definitely did not write the
letter
>>>> out of any sense of anger or irritation with Microsoft.  I concluded my
>>>> letter to Dr. Maurer by saying, "Overall I think the meeting with
Microsoft
>>>> went as well as could be expected under the circumstances.
Representatives
>>>> of some of the product groups heard from real live blind consumers and
may
>>>> have received insights that they never had before. We, on the other
hand,
>>>> learned something about how accessibility is handled at Microsoft-that
is,
>>>> it is still not truly a corporate mandate but rather something which
various
>>>> groups must be persuaded to incorporate into their product development
>>>> cycles."  The letter as published in the Braille Monitor can be found
at
>>>> http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm04/bm0412/bm041206.htm.
>>>> 
>>>> I know that in this day and age, blog posting is extremely popular and
often
>>>> serves as a convenient channel for communication.  Convenient and
popular as
>>>> blogs are, I believe it is incumbent on anyone who posts in a blog to
ensure
>>>> that the information disseminated is accurate.  I regret that in this
case,
>>>> the accuracy quotient was not as high as it could have been.
>>>> 
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> 
>>>> Curtis Chong, President
>>>> National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Original Blog As Posted By Chris Hofstader
>>>> 
>>>> The Hands That Feed.
>>>> Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:44 - cdh
>>>> Why do organizations that claim to advocate for people with vision
>>>> impairment choose to take action against companies that do a good job
with
>>>> accessibility while giving a free pass to many that do nothing for our
>>>> community?
>>>> 
>>>> Yesterday, I was talking to my friend and Serotek CEO, Mike Calvo. He
>>>> enthusiastically told me about a device that the people at the Disney
Magic
>>>> Kingdom theme park in Orlando, Florida gave him to use for his visit
there
>>>> on Sunday. According to Mike, a guy who knows a whole lot about
>>>> accessibility, it looked like a little box with headphones. The
information
>>>> provided directly into his ears provided a step by step narrative of
the
>>>> park and described what he would have seen if he hadn't been blind on
the
>>>> rides and during the shows.
>>>> 
>>>> "I'm 44 years old," said Mike, "I've been going to Disney since I was
three.
>>>> This was the first time I got to really enjoy it all."
>>>> 
>>>> Last year, the American Federation of the Blind (AFB) gave Disney one
of its
>>>> prestigious Access Awards for the excellent accessibility of their
theme
>>>> parks. Also, last year, three blind American individuals filed a class
>>>> action lawsuit against Disney for violating the Americans With
Disabilities
>>>> Act (ADA) for having certain portions of their web site inaccessible to
>>>> people with vision impairment.
>>>> 
>>>> I tend to support using lawsuits as a tactic to force companies to stop
>>>> discriminating against people with disabilities by presenting an
>>>> inaccessible web site. Web accessibility isn't too hard to do if the
site's
>>>> developers just follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
>>>> available at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) web site and certainly
a
>>>> company like Disney can afford to do so. At the same time, I accept
that our
>>>> community must first warn a company before filing a lawsuit and,
>>>> furthermore, we should offer our services as accessibility experts to
these
>>>> companies before we start tossing around litigation. I understand that
>>>> American Counsel of the Blind (ACB) takes the "try niceness first"
approach
>>>> to solving web accessibility problems, a tactic for which they should
be
>>>> commended.
>>>> 
>>>> Disney, with the excellent accessibility of their theme parks, should
also
>>>> make their web sites fully accessible to people with vision and other
print
>>>> impairments but, given that they have demonstrated that they are
willing to
>>>> provide profoundly greater access to their parks than any other such
>>>> organization (Six Flags, Busch Gardens, Universal, etc.) lends me to
believe
>>>> that, if properly made aware of the web issues, they would likely take
>>>> action to remediate their site in a reasonable amount of time. I'd add
that
>>>> a company like Disney would also likely hire blind contractors to help
them
>>>> test their accessibility as they try to roll it out.
>>>> 
>>>> So, why file a lawsuit against Disney while letting organizations that
are
>>>> much worse off of the hook?
>>>> 
>>>> One might assume that the three individuals who filed the suit acted
>>>> impetuously and, as they don't represent any of the advocacy
organizations,
>>>> they really do not represent the class of people with vision
impairment.
>>>> Unfortunately, this practice of using aggressive legal tactics and
publicity
>>>> against companies who do a better job with accessibility seems built
into
>>>> the culture of some so-called advocates. Even worse, some companies who
have
>>>> web sites with loads of accessibility problems get applause from some
groups
>>>> claiming to represent the community of people with vision impairment.
>>>> 
>>>> Last July, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB)at its summer
>>>> convention passed a resolution "condemning and deploring" Apple for the
sin
>>>> of not requiring that everything sold in its app store be fully
accessible.
>>>> While I agree that having such a requirement would be nice, Apple has
done
>>>> vastly more than its operating system rivals Google, Microsoft and all
>>>> flavors of GNU/Linux to promote accessibility. Also, Google and
Microsoft
>>>> have their own app stores with no requirements for accessibility
either.
>>>> 
>>>> Before I launch into the politics that seem to have led to the NFB
>>>> resolution, I will provide a few examples that demonstrate Apple's
>>>> overwhelming lead in providing systems accessible to people with vision
>>>> impairment. Since introducing VoiceOver, the utility people with print
>>>> impairments use to hear the contents of the screen spoken or sent to a
>>>> refreshable braille display, Apple has sold 100 million devices that
are
>>>> accessible to this community. Additionally, every product in an Apple
retail
>>>> store that has a user interface includes VoiceOver. A blind person can
go to
>>>> an Apple store and try out everything they sell except the iPod Classic
>>>> which hasn't had a software revision in a really long time. I can use
any
>>>> Macintosh, iPhone, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle, iPod Touch and more sold in
the
>>>> past few years without installing any extra software. Meanwhile, I
would
>>>> need to spend nearly $1000 extra to use Windows on a "standard"
computer if
>>>> I want to use the most popular screen access utility for that platform.
>>>> Android from Google includes a screen access tool called "TalkBack"
which
>>>> is, in my educated opinion, years behind the out-of-the-box experience
>>>> provided by Apple and the costly add-ons required by Windows.
>>>> 
>>>> When counting accessible devices, Apple's more than 100 million is more
than
>>>> all of the software and hardware sold by the access technology industry
>>>> since its formation more than 30 years ago. People in nations ignored
by the
>>>> AT biz now enjoy unparalleled access if they can get a used iPhone 3GS
which
>>>> can be had for much less than JAWS, the leading Windows screen reader
from
>>>> Freedom Scientific.
>>>> 
>>>> Why then did NFB choose to single out the leader in affordable
>>>> out-of-the-box accessibility while celebrating Google's tremendously
>>>> sub-standard access?
>>>> 
>>>> At the NFB convention in 2010, they gave Apple one of their
accessibility
>>>> awards. In 2011, Apple decided that because of its upcoming Lion
operating
>>>> system release that they would not attend any of what we in the
blindness
>>>> biz call "the summer shows" - including the national NFB convention,
the ACB
>>>> convention, Sight Village in UK and various smaller conferences. Apple
>>>> representatives explained to NFB that they needed to focus on the
>>>> accessibility of their new OS release and of numerous smaller
initiatives
>>>> they were preparing for autumn 2011.
>>>> 
>>>> Curtis Chong, head of NFB in Computer Science, the portion of NFB
>>>> responsible for computing issues decided to threaten people at Apple
with a
>>>> resolution of condemnation if they didn't attend the convention. Then,
at
>>>> the convention, he pushed through a resolution deploring the company
that
>>>> has provided an excellent out-of-box experience that is years ahead of
their
>>>> competition. It seems that Curtis did this because his feelings were
hurt or
>>>> some other completely childish motivation for biting the hand that
feeds us
>>>> best.
>>>> 
>>>> How do I know all of the back room wrangling that happened between the
>>>> largest organization that claims to represent blind people and a
notoriously
>>>> secretive corporation? Because Curtis, in the most unprofessional move
of
>>>> this unfortunate incident, decided to release all of the correspondence
>>>> between himself and our friends at Apple. This data dump included the
names
>>>> of individuals at Apple, their personal email addresses and mobile
phone
>>>> numbers and, yes, the people in Apple accessibility positions received
some
>>>> harassment from the NFB faithful but, likely to Curtis' chagrin,
comments on
>>>> blogs that republished the correspondence defended Apple as, yes, the
>>>> community knows which hands to avoid biting.
>>>> 
>>>> Though they do not represent me and the members of our community with
whom I
>>>> choose to associate, I'd like to apologize to these hard working
individuals
>>>> for the behavior of the NFB. Even at times of greatest conflict, froth
with
>>>> frustration, actions like those done by Curtis Chong are not those that
a
>>>> respectable advocacy organization should undertake. Rather, they are
>>>> reminiscent of the childishness of kids who have discovered some small
>>>> sliver of their own personal ability to influence the world and choose
to
>>>> use it for instant gratification in lieu of sustainable and systemic
>>>> progress.
>>>> 
>>>> If this was the first time Curtis and NFB had pulled such a stunt, I
could
>>>> forgive it. One might say that Chong's actions might have been an
overly
>>>> zealous reaction to his feeling disrespected by a company that received
an
>>>> award from his group only a year earlier. Sadly, this wasn't the first
time
>>>> he did this.
>>>> 
>>>> A number of years back, Curtis attended an accessibility event on the
>>>> Microsoft campus. Then, my friend Madeline Bryant McIntyre ran the MS
Access
>>>> Technology Group (ATG) and everyone in attendance, including me, signed
a
>>>> non-disclosure agreement. As we were under NDA, our friends in the MS
ATG
>>>> felt they could converse openly with us about their timelines, their
plans
>>>> for the future of their accessibility initiatives and secret
under-the-hood
>>>> aspects of the then unreleased Windows Vista. I can't recall what
angered
>>>> Curtis that time but he took all of the correspondence and lots of
other
>>>> data covered by the NDA and dumped it out onto the Internet. Microsoft
could
>>>> have taken legal action but can you imagine the headline in the Wall
Street
>>>> Journal, "Behemoth Microsoft Sues Blind Advocacy Group" so MS couldn't
react
>>>> to Chong's violation of their agreement. My friends at MS can no longer
>>>> trust Curtis and I doubt any NFB representative will be invited back to
a
>>>> private session, thus limiting NFB's ability to advocate for our
community.
>>>> 
>>>> At the time Curtis attacked Microsoft, the Redmond software giant was
the
>>>> leader in accessibility, a fact to which I testified in the DOJ's
antitrust
>>>> case against MS.. Microsoft's ATG continues to employ some of the most
>>>> talented people in the field and I'm expecting some terrific things
from
>>>> them in the upcoming Windows 8.
>>>> 
>>>> Thus, while trashing Apple and going public with MS information, NFB
also
>>>> chose to file ADA based lawsuits against some companies for having web
sites
>>>> with lots of accessibility violations. The first such suit was against
AOL
>>>> and NFB chose to settle the case for a rumored $5 million award without
AOL
>>>> making any improvements in their then miserable accessibility.
>>>> 
>>>> The next suit was filed against Amazon whose web site contains many
>>>> accessibility violations. Amazon hired New Hampshire based, Paciello
Group
>>>> (TPG) to help it with its defense against NFB. Mike Paciello, head of
TPG,
>>>> finds his way onto all sorts of accessibility standards groups and acts
>>>> publicly like an advocate for accessibility for people with all sorts
of
>>>> disabilities but also accepts clients with reprehensible records on
>>>> accessibility and, given the history of some of these outcomes, his
clients
>>>> don't seem to ever actually take accessibility seriously. I contend
that he
>>>> should work for clients who have actual plans of becoming accessible
rather
>>>> than adding the name of his highly respected company to the bad guys of
web
>>>> accessibility.
>>>> 
>>>> If you are thinking, "Everyone deserves a defense," I must remind you
that
>>>> these cases are civil lawsuits and, in the US, only defendants in
criminal
>>>> cases have a constitutional right to a defense. This community has seen
>>>> Freedom Scientific, the largest and most wealthy company in the
blindness
>>>> business, file all sorts of harassing civil cases against smaller
rivals who
>>>> could not afford a defense so had to bow to the big guy's wishes. I
know
>>>> this because, while I worked for FS, I participated in this harassment
and,
>>>> since leaving the company, I have been on the losing end of their
>>>> harassment.
>>>> 
>>>> Amazon settled its lawsuit with NFB for an undisclosed sum of cash and,
now,
>>>> years later, the Amazon web site is still loaded with bad accessibility
>>>> problems.
>>>> 
>>>> The next NFB suit was against American retail giant, Target. Once
again, TPG
>>>> was retained by the defense and, once again, NFB dropped the suit after
>>>> Target gave them an undisclosed amount of money and, not surprisingly,
>>>> Target's web site continues to have major accessibility problems.
>>>> 
>>>> After settling its lawsuits, NFB made public statements congratulating
AOL,
>>>> Amazon and Target for taking steps to become accessible. As a user, I
saw
>>>> only minimal and patronizing attempts at accessibility by the
defendants in
>>>> these cases and NFB certainly did not represent the community of people
with
>>>> vision impairments actual needs and desires.
>>>> 
>>>> At last years NFB convention, ebay was the lead sponsor. Guess what?
The
>>>> ebay web site had, at that time, dozens of accessibility problems . NFB
took
>>>> ebay's sponsorship dollars while ignoring their poor accessibility.
Those of
>>>> us who would say that any group advocating for our community should
require
>>>> accessibility before rewarding a company by splashing its name all over
>>>> their convention like they were a friend of our population.
>>>> 
>>>> In the time since the 2011 NFB convention, ebay has hired an
accessibility
>>>> engineer and has, according to a friend of mine, been working with NFB
to
>>>> remediate its web accessibility problems. When I tried the ebay site
this
>>>> past week, I noticed that it is much more usable by a screen reader
user
>>>> than ever in the past. I am happy for ebay's efforts and hope this is a
new
>>>> role for NFB, actually getting things done rather than just shaking
down
>>>> those who violate web accessibility standards and guidelines.
>>>> 
>>>> While slamming Apple at their annual convention, they celebrated Google
with
>>>> lots of presentation slots for their Android system. As I wrote above,
>>>> Android accessibility is poor at best but NFB probably got a fat
>>>> contribution from Google and, as any advocate knows, money talks,
>>>> accessibility walks.
>>>> 
>>>> Why does this community bite the hands that feed us while trying to
coddle
>>>> those who treat us as a nuisance at best? I really do not know. I will
>>>> probably join ACB this year as, while they have their problems too,
their
>>>> approach to advocacy makes much more sense than NFB. I will continue my
>>>> personal letter writing campaign to developers of web sites with poor
>>>> accessibility and continue to offer them my services as a tester when
they
>>>> start making their improvements. I will continue to use mostly Apple
>>>> products and will continue to encourage my accessibility hacker friends
at
>>>> Google and MS to try to catch up with Apple.
>>> <winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
>>> gui-talk mailing list
>>> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
gui-talk:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/rforetjr%40att.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> gui-talk mailing list
>> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
gui-talk:
>>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/taraprakash%40gmail.co
m 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gui-talk mailing list
> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
gui-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/rforetjr%40att.net

_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
gui-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com