[Promotion-technology] Fwd: [nfbcs] Response to "The Hands ThatFeed"

[Mike Freeman]

Jeanine:

Although I agree with you, I think the point here is that the gentleman
probably would not acknowledge that he has falsely stated our position or
misrepresented Curtis' actions. The fact that NFB spoke up at all was enough
to generate his ire. The title of his post is significant.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: promotion-technology-bounces at nfbnet.org
[mailto:promotion-technology-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Jeanine
Lineback
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:09 AM
To: Committee on the Promotion, Evaluation and Advancement ofTechnology;
thomas.stivers at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Promotion-technology] Fwd: [nfbcs] Response to "The Hands
ThatFeed"

Okay this has sparked many thoughts and feelings in me. I am going to
attempt to write them here in a logical fashion. 
First I think all of us who are aware of the falicies in this blog post
should post comments pointing out the factual errors in his post, as David
has done in his e-mail. 
Second, I think each of us who post comments pointing out his factual errors
should ask that he write a follow up post apologizing to our organization
for his clear misrepresentation of the facts. 
 Third, and this is more the feelings part, you don't have to agree with the
way we, the NFB, goes about trying to get companies, web developers and
other digital content providers to work with the blind so that we have
access to the same digital content at the same time as our sighted coleagues
but launching personal attacks on our leaders and members seem more like
highschool behavior, especially when the attacks are based on incorrect
information. So I just want to say, "Chris, please join the ACB or whatever
other blindness organization that you wish. But base your decision on the
facts. Not some made up version that you think justifies your decision to
join a different organization than the NFB." 
I have many more thoughts and feelings on the blog post but this is as much
as I can clearly articulate at the moment. I guess it just infuriates me
that when someone disagrees with a position we take or the way we express a
particular position they think that they can use false acusations combined
with a threat to join another blindness organization to justify their
positions and decisions. We will do, what about it? The way I see it, if the
NFB is not where you want to be, contribute, participate and help to make
things better for blind people then please please please move on. You don't
need to justify your reasons to me or the world. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 26, 2012, at 8:35 AM, "Gary Wunder" <GWunder at earthlink.net> wrote:

> I wonder if Chris will correct his factual errors--the resolution that was
> passed and not the one debated and defeated. Also, the allegations about
the
> NDA are serious and I wonder if he will take Curtis's statements and give
> them the same prominence he has to his blog. 
> 
>> _____________________________________________ 
>> From:    promotion-technology-bounces at nfbnet.org
>> [mailto:promotion-technology-bounces at nfbnet.org]  On Behalf Of David
>> Andrews
>> Sent:    Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:13 PM
>> To:    blindtlk at nfbnet.org
>> Subject:    [Promotion-technology] Fwd: [nfbcs] Response to "The Hands
>> ThatFeed"
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> << File: ATT00026.txt >> 
> _______________________________________________
> Promotion-technology mailing list
> Promotion-technology at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/promotion-technology_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Promotion-technology:
>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/promotion-technology_nfbnet.org/jeanine.li
neback%40gmail.com

_______________________________________________
Promotion-technology mailing list
Promotion-technology at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/promotion-technology_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Promotion-technology:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/promotion-technology_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40pa
nix.com