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

[Ray Foret Jr]

Point welll taken.  Still and all, the Google resolution's wording applied to Apple would have preserved the wanted strength of the resolution without the C&D part.


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 9:28 AM, Mike Freeman wrote:

> 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 stupid counterparts had been repealed by the British Parliament.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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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