[gui-talk] [nfbcs] Response to "The Hands That Feed"
Mike Freeman
k7uij at panix.com
Sun Feb 26 19:21:52 UTC 2012
Why does "condemn and deplore" stick so in your craw? We *could* have
accused Apple of being the handmaiden of uncaring industry or of being the
running-dogs of exploitive Chinese workshops or something. This resolution
was mild compared to some of the 1970's! (grin)
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 8:45 AM
To: Discussion of the Graphical User Interface, GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] [nfbcs] Response to "The Hands That Feed"
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 oppressive and stupid counterparts had been repealed by the British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%40at
>>>> t.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%40gm
> ail.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.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.n
> et
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the GUI-Talk
mailing list