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

[Steve Jacobson]

I also think that what seems to get lost here is that Unlike Microsoft, particularly, Apple has pretty tight controls over its applications, and as I recall, we 
were told by Apple before VoiceOver was released that VoiceOver did not need to be quite as complex as say JFW or Window-Eyes because Apple did 
have more control over applications and even the development platforms.  To me, this gave us the right to expect more from Apple and even be more 
disappointed when it seemed that accessibility of apps takes a back seat when compared with other characteristics.  However, I also don't understand 
some about the Apple culture, either.  I use a lot of Microsoft products, but I clearly don't feel the sort of unquestioning loyalty to Microsoft that seems to be 
common among many Apple users, and this probably should have been considered in our resolutions.  I also forgot that probably most people reading this 
note including Apple employees, didn't live when "Condemn and Deplore" were as much a part of any resolution as was "Be it resolved."  So, we live and 
learn, I suppose.

.  Apple has raised the bar where accessibility is concerned, and they have developed innovative approaches to touch screens that let us use them in 
ways many of us had not imagined.  This is all very new to us and very refreshing.  Sometimes, though, I think it is possible that we can forget that the 
accessibility of their products is fast becoming something that is essential for our education and even employment.  Accessibility isn't just another nice 
feature to us as are many of the features of Apples products to the general public, they are literally our future in many respects.  I believe that this means 
we have a right to expect a little more dialog with Apple than we have had, and given our small market size, we are much more affected by what Apple 
continues to do with accessibility than does accessibility affect Apple.  In all fairness, we do owe a debt of grattitude to Apple for what they have done.  
However, somehow we need to get to the point in general where accessibility of software is not something for which we need to be grateful but is 
something we can expect from major companies.  That does not mean we shouldn't be grateful when companies go the extra mile to make their products 
accessible, though, but we also have an interest in what is going to happen within Apple and elsewhere that goes beyond what matters to the general 
public.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 07:28:38 -0800, 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/steve.jacobson%40visi.com