[nabs-l] Getting employed/accessing the workplace
Kirt Manwaring
kirt.crazydude at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 20:56:58 UTC 2012
Ashley,
You might want to enable virtual ribbons in the jaws quick settings.
(or with insert + v in microsoft office applications, whichever you
prefer) I actually find microsoft office 2010 extremely accessible
because of things like the quick access tool bar and because I don't
have to tab through everything in a ribbon to access it...keystrokes
still work, you can turn on virtual ribbons to make it look almost
like it used to before and, honestly, I like the ribbons better than
the menus sometimes just because it's really easy, in my opinion, to
find what I need. And, as I said, the quick access tool bar is a huge
plus for me.
Best,
Kirt
On 6/13/12, Ashley Bramlett <bookwormahb at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Bill,
> There are many barriers in accessibility in windows with software. However,
>
> that said, I believe windows with a paid screen reader like jaws or window
> eyes gives us more accessibility in the Operating system. We have more
> access too because you can customize not only the applications but you can
> customize your screen reader settings. I do not know how much customization
>
> you can do with voice over. As you said, its drawbacks are it only works
> with products produced by Apple.
> The only way we solve the accessibility challenge is to raise awareness so
> software makers build accessibility in the software from the beginning. Too
>
> often its an after thought and then if you are lucky, your employer may have
>
> scripts produced for you to access their software.
> Accessibility is getting worse. The new ribbons from Office suite as of 2007
>
> make finding things more a challenge because while a sighted person can skim
>
> the row and click on stuff, we have to tab and hear all options. In a
> traditional menu, we could scroll it pretty fast with first letter
> navigation or a hot key if Office assigned one. For instance, In the old
> Word, I would press alt t for tools, then w for word count.
> If you think its bad now, the windows 8 interface is worse. I know as I
> spoke to some computer trainers and testers. The windows 8 system looks
> more like a touch screen. We will not have a shut down option on the start
> menu as we do now.
>
> Popular software currently isn't accessible. These include quickbooks,
> quicken, as well as Microsoft's Access, publisher, and share point.
> So there are certainly accessibility challenges out there but that said, I
> think the paid screen readers give us a lot more flexibility to access a
> wide variety of applications and we can customize it as well.
>
> Ashley
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:22 AM
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> Subject: [nabs-l] Getting employed/accessing the workplace
>
> I shutter to think that Apple becomes the standard. The only thing
> they have going for them is a poor screen reader built right into the
> system. Don't forget that VO only works fully with applications
> produced by Apple. MS office experience is not great, support for
> firefox I have heard is not good to not existent. I would imagine the
> third party business applications, though sometimes not accessible on
> windows probably would be less so with VO. Until Apple and the
> software vendors for Mac OS, I think that windows gives us better
> access to a fully capable screen reader with access to a far wider
> viriety of everyday and specialty programs.
> Bill
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Wasif, Zunaira
> <Zunaira.Wasif at dbs.fldoe.org> wrote:
>> It doesn't directly mention web cites, but it has been applied to web
>> cites a long with telecommunications and other such services. There is
>> a miscellaneous portion as well, I believe its section 5, that may
>> apply. What do you suggest to improve job accessibility? The Apple
>> conversion was just a thought.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>> Behalf Of David Andrews
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:00 AM
>> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>
>> Please get your information straight. The ADA does not currently cover
>> web sites. It is likely too in the future but currently doesn't.
>>
>> Apple stuff is primarily consumer-oriented, and while they should be
>> applauded for their efforts in accessibility, they do not even come
>> close in giving us the tools we sometimes need to make
>> employment-oriented web sites and software accessible.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> At 02:19 PM 6/12/2012, you wrote:
>>>I'm hoping, some what fancifully, that five years from now all
>>>employers will be using Apple products and many jobs will become
>>>accessible. If we sue employers for not having accessible soft ware,
>>>it might push them towards the accessibility conversion. I have two
>>>clients right now who may get fired because JAWS isn't working well
>>>with the employer's technology. This is a form of discrimination and
>>>it violates the ADA in the same way that inaccessible web cites violate
>>
>>>the ADA. I have a client who was denied a job interview even though
>>>he's worked in the field because he wasn't working with the Lighthouse.
>>
>>>All of these people should have jobs and probably would if the ADA were
>> enforced.
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>>Behalf Of Sophie Trist
>>>Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:40 PM
>>>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>>
>>>You make some very good points. I did not know that most employers ask
>>>for Lighthouse certification. This is bad for people like me who are
>>>not affiliated with a Lighthouse because they remind oo much of the
>>>schools of the blind. As to the inaccessible computer programs, maybe
>>>we should institute a program where we payed them to install acessible
>> programs?
>>>I'm not entirely sure, that's just an idea.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Wasif, Zunaira" <Zunaira.Wasif at dbs.fldoe.org
>>>To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
>>><nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>>Date sent: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:00:57 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>>
>>>Sometimes extreme measures are required to overcome attitudinal hurdles
>>
>>>such as this one. I haven't made up my mind about the quota but I know
>>>that it helped African Americans enter the work place. Maybe
>>>the only
>>>way to quickly and effectively remedy this employment issue is through
>>>reverse discrimination. The legislation is there in the form of the
>>>ADA and rehab acts, but it isn't implemented. I work with clients
>>>every day who can't get a job because the employer's computer system is
>>
>>>running a program that is incompatible with JAWS or Zoom text. The
>>>fact that employers are still purchasing this type of software is
>> discriminatory!
>>>It is the equivalent of not providing an elevator in a multiple level
>>>building. Maybe the best antidote for this type of discrimination is
>>>reverse discrimination. The NFB is advocating for "more programs," but
>>
>>>the potential applicant shouldn't have to go through a lighthouse or
>>>through any program. They should be able to apply off of the street
>>>like anyone else. A blind applicant shouldn't require a certification
>>>from a Lighthouse saying that they can type before an employer will
>>>even interview them. I'm working in this field and I see that happen
>>>every day. If a visually impaired client calls Hilton for a customer
>>>service job the first question the recruiter asks is, "are you working
>>>with the Lighthouse?" The reason that companies do this is because
>>>they want their corporate tax credit and they want assurance from the
>>>Lighthouse that the blind person has the skills for the job. My
>>>question is, how do they find out if a nonvisually impaired employee
>> has the skills?
>>>They want an incentive to hire disabled people. The attitude is "oh,
>>>yeh? You want me to hire a blind person? You better give me a tax
>>>break." In other words, they are saying, "Oh yeh? You better pay me
>>>to hire that blind person." This is the current situation. Our
>>>government pays people to hire disabled workers and companies like
>>>Goodwill thrive off of this. In job development exercises we are
>>>taught to market the corporate tax credit, not the client. How is this
>>
>>>any better than the quota system? I'm not saying the quota system is
>>>perfect, but maybe it's the best option we have right now. Maybe its an
>> effective way of
>>>proving that "we are worth something." If there is a better
>>>option I
>>>would love to hear it so I can advocate for it in my agency and make
>>>change.
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>>[mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>>Behalf Of Sophie Trist
>>>Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:26 AM
>>>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>>
>>>The issue of hiring quotas for minority groups has popped up in the
>>>past, and it has caused nothing but controversy. If there is to be
>>>ahiring quota for disabled people, non-disabled people who were
>>>rejected or whose jobs were taken away and given to the disabled could
>>>argue reverse--discrimination. Besides, we want them to hire us because
>>
>>>we're worth something, not just because they have to fill a certain
>> quota.
>>>Evem mentally disabled individuals can perform simple factory jobs.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Wasif, Zunaira" <Zunaira.Wasif at dbs.fldoe.org
>>>To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
>>><nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>>Date sent: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:57:06 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>>
>>>What do people think about a hiring quota for disabled people?
>>>This
>>>would render Good Will's argument, that disabled people need to settle
>>>for subminum wages or no wages, obselete.
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>>[mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>>Behalf Of Kirt Manwaring
>>>Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:03 PM
>>>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>>
>>>Ashley,
>>> You said there may not be a set corporate policy, and I suppose
>>>you're probably right. But there should be, and that's why this
>>>boycott makes sense to me. If you have some branches paying any
>>>employees below the minimum wage, you really do need a national policy
>> to set that straight.
>>>Unfortunate, but true. I really think it is that simple...this is one
>>>of those few issues where there isn't much of a grey area, in my humble
>>
>>>opinion.
>>> Take it or leave it,
>>>Kirt
>>>
>>>On 6/11/12, Ashley Bramlett <bookwormahb at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Elizabeth,
>>> Perhaps, the figure supports my theory that in fact most employees
>>>are
>>>
>>> paid
>>>
>>> above minimum wage. As Arielle said, most locations vary in what they
>>
>>>pay. I
>>>
>>> don't think there is a set corporate policy.
>>>
>>> Ashley
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Elizabeth
>>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 2:24 PM
>>> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>>
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>> Please forgive me as I did not read through the entire article you
>>>make reference to in your post. However, now that I have read it, I am
>>>
>>> still wondering how they can come up with an average of $7.47 when
>>>someone is only making $1.44. I am not a math genius by any means, but
>>>
>>> it would seem to me that if someone is only making $1.44, and the
>>>average is $7.47, then that would mean someone is making a considerable
>>
>>>amount more than what most people are making to achieve such an
>>>average. Does this make any sense? I am not necessarily questioning the
>>
>>>information you cited from the article, but rather questioning the
>>>information that was cited in the article itself.
>>> There is just something about it that does not make sense to me.
>>>I am
>>> sorry that I cannot find a better way to explain it.
>>>
>>> Warm regards,
>>> Elizabeth
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "Greg Aikens" <gpaikens at gmail.com
>>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:26 PM
>>> To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
>>> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>>
>>> Hi Elizabeth,
>>> I should have included my sources. The first was the article
>>>recently posted to the list by Anil Lewis:
>>>
>>>http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/208068/189/Goodwill-Pays-Disabl
>>>ed-E
>>> mployees-Less-than-Minimum-Wage This article gives the number of
>>>employees impacted and their average wage. The reason that an average
>>>wage of $7.47 could still be below minimum wage is because many states
>>
>>>have minimum wage laws that are higher
>>>
>>> than the federal minimum wage. For a quick list of minimum wage by
>>>state, go to:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages
>>>
>>> Please check my facts in case I misread.
>>>
>>> -Greg
>>>
>>> On Jun 11, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Elizabeth wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Gregg,
>>>
>>> I have to say that your numbers to not make much sense to me. If
>>>these employees are making $7.47 as mentioned in your post, , then how
>>
>>>exactly
>>>
>>> does that constitute as a subminimum wage? Is it possible the
>>>calculated
>>>
>>> average of these employees also includes the outrageously high
>>>salaries of those who may hold management positions which in effect
>>>would cancel out the extremely low subminimum wages paid to the factory
>>
>>>worker or the
>>>
>>> average employee thus creating an average that appears to be above
>>>the national minimum wage? I am not sure where you found your numbers,
>>>but if
>>>
>>> what you state is true, then I do not see how this would be an issue
>>>
>>> of paying people subminimum wage.
>>>
>>> Warm regards,
>>> Elizabeth
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "Greg Aikens" <gpaikens at gmail.com
>>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 10:46 AM
>>> To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
>>> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Good Will Boycott Etc.
>>>
>>> Sean's post got me thinking about how many employees are actually
>>>impacted by this policy and how much it would cost for them to actually
>>>
>>> make these changes. According to the article Anil Lewis posted, 7300
>>
>>>employees are hired on their certificate to pay disabled workers less
>>>than minimum wage, but the average wage paid them is $7.47, which is
>>>actually higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. I can't say
>>>what the average minimum wage for these workers
>>>
>>> would be because each state is different, but I wouldn't imagine it
>>>
>>> could be higher than $8.50. So they would have to on average pay
>>>workers with disabilities
>>> $1 more per hour, $40 more per week, $2080 per year. Multiply that
>>>
>>> by the 7300 employees on the certificate and you get $15,184,000.
>>>
>>> I was surprised that the number of workers impacted by this policy
>>>is so
>>>
>>> high.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I thought these numbers were interesting and thought I would
>>>post in case others are interested too.
>>>
>>> -Greg
>>> On Jun 10, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Gmail wrote:
>>>
>>> Good afternoon,
>>>
>>> One of the primary purposes of the boycott is to garner media
>>> attention
>>>
>>> for
>>> the minimum wage issue. The boycott effort and PR/media efforts are
>>>complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
>>>
>>> We "pick on" Good Will because they are one of, if not the, largest
>>> and
>>>
>>> most
>>> visible nonprofits who take advantage of the current law to pay
>>> workers
>>>
>>> with
>>> disabilities subminimum wages. When you're the biggest fish in the
>>>
>>> pond you're going to get noticed and your actions will be scrutinized
>>
>>>by people in and out of your field. That's just the way it goes.
>>>
>>> Most of these workshops do the vast majority of their business with
>>>the federal government, providing goods and services through
>>>non-competitive set-aside contracts. These goods and services are
>>>frequently provided at costs that exceed their fair market value.
>>> Obviously Good Will has their hands in other activities as well, but
>>>the point stands. If taxpayers are being asked to subsidize nonprofits
>>>to create employment opportunities
>>>
>>> for
>>> blind or otherwise disabled individuals, and we all, in effect,
>>>subsidize the very good, and sometimes exorbitant, salaries of the
>>>
>>> management of
>>>
>>> these
>>> non-profits, why is it a bad idea to subsidize the wages of disabled
>>>individuals, even those who may not be able to produce output
>>>justifying the minimum wage in the market?
>>>
>>> I think that the number of disabled folks in these workshops who are
>>>incapable of truly earning the minimum wage is much lower than
>>>
>>> most people assume. And, again, if there is somebody whose level of
>>>output truly only justifies $1.50 per hour, I am happy to subsidize the
>>
>>>wage to give them
>>>
>>> the
>>> dignity of equal treatment under the law.
>>>
>>> I myself worked for a time in a shop and was paid less than $4 per
>>>
>>> hour. I'm worth more than that. I saw others in the very same boat.
>>>The law is discriminatory, and the system is corrupt and fails to
>>>achieve its stated goals. Not only should the minimum wage apply, but
>>>organizations wishing to receive preferential treatment in government
>>>contracting should have to
>>>
>>> fill
>>> a stated percentage of their managerial positions with folks with
>>>disabilities and offer true training and upward mobility. As it stands
>>>
>>> now,
>>> there is no real opportunity in the vast majority of these workshops.
>>>
>>> While it is true that, generally speaking, the NFB only speaks for
>>>
>>> the blind, on this issue we have over 40 different disabilities
>>>rights organizations standing shoulder to shoulder with us saying that
>>
>>>it is reprehensible that we, today in the United States of America,
>>>have a law on the books that codifies the inferiority and
>>>
>>> lesser ability of those with disabilities. We, and they, are
>>>completely correct. The boycott of Good
>>>
>>> Will
>>> is but one piece of the larger effort. It is incumbent upon each of
>>> us
>>>
>>> to
>>> keep pressure on our Members of Congress to change the law. Will it
>>>cost Good Will and other non-profits more money to pay all their
>>>workers minimum wage? Yes, it will. Is the tiny increase in cost
>>>realistically going to
>>>
>>> lead
>>> to the loss of job opportunities as many of the workshops claim?
>>>I
>>>
>>> can't see how it would. In fact, it won't. And the argument is
>>>disingenuous and, frankly, pretty disgusting. Say a shop worker
>>>currently makes $1.50 an
>>>
>>> hour.
>>> Say the law is changed and minimum wage now applies. Say the employee
>>
>>>is now paid $7.50 an hour. That's an extra $6 an hour, an
>>>
>>> extra $240 a week, and $12,480 a year. Say Good Will has 100
>>>employees of whom this is the case (in reality there are fewer).
>>> This would represent an annual cost increase
>>>
>>> of
>>> $1,248,000 to Good Will. That's a lot of money to you or me, but a
>>>
>>> pittance to this giant non-profit. The same can be said of smaller
>>>
>>> shops, just on a smaller scale. The argument that all the poor
>>>unemployable disabled folks will be sent home jobless if the law is
>>>changed is bogus and cynical.
>>> As I
>>> said before, the majority of these shops get the majority of their
>>>
>>> business through non-competitive contracts with the government, so
>>>
>>> the additional labor cost would be built right into the price the
>>>government pays.
>>> And, as
>>> I also said, I am happy to have my tax dollars go to affirm the
>>>dignity, value and legal equality of all individuals rather than to
>>>support the
>>>
>>> 70,
>>> 80, 100k salaries of the management types at these shops who somehow
>>>sleep at night under the illusion, or maybe delusion, that
>>>
>>> they are doing something positive for people with disabilities.
>>> It's wrong, it's disgusting, and, yes, it hits a raw nerve with me
>>>
>>> because I've lived it. If there is a minimum wage it should apply to
>>
>>>everybody in the employment market, full stop.
>>>
>>> Sean
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nabs-l mailing list
>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nabs-l:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/zunaira.wasif%40dbs.
>> fldoe.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nabs-l mailing list
>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nabs-l:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/cassonw%40gmail.com
>
>
>
> --
> Bill Casson
> University of New Mexico
> M.S. Computer Science
> Lewis & Clark Alumnus '11
> B.A. Physics and Math/Comp Sci.
> (505) 695-1374
> cassonw at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/bookwormahb%40earthlink.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/kirt.crazydude%40gmail.com
>
More information about the NABS-L
mailing list