[blindlaw] More reply to Alcidonis' post

[Ford, Tim (DHS-OLS)]

I too have had good luck with the Westlaw text only version.  Only once
in a very blue moon do I need to use the "regular" Westlaw site.
Perhaps the lost features that are being referred to here are not
actually lost, but just available through a different mechanism on the
text only site?  Without specifics, I have no idea.

Sincerely,
Tim Ford


-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of McCarthy, Jim
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 7:49 AM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] More reply to Alcidonis' post


Hello,
Obviously, this discussion has immediate relevance to Angie, Rod and
other entering law students who are trying to figure out the best ways
to achieve their success in law school.  I think it is also pretty
interesting from the perspective of coming to terms with what
accessibility means in the computer age.  It is my understanding that
Westlaw has been very out front with an interest in providing a usable
product for blind lawyers and law students.  I am sure Steve Jacobson is
right when he says that this discussion might confuse the Westlaw folks.
Having said that though, I have always been concerned that text only is
separate and not equal, at least in the majority of cases.  I think
Brendan is right to want some of the search narrowing features to be
accessible.  Many people are liberated, for example, with all they can
retrieve from a search engine like Google.  However, lots of us,
including yours truly, really are not so good at narrowing those
searches to separate t! he wheat from the chaff.  That, it seems to me
is the mark of someone who really maximizes the usefulness of a search
engine.

The point of my comments is this.  I think we who are blind can push for
greater use of Westlaw features.  We can share what we learn as Angie
has done, and we can negotiate to develop access to some of these more
graphical features.  Westlaw has a long tradition of working with blind
people and of hiring blind researchers too, or at least they use to have
some blind researchers.  Most practicing attorneys I know who are blind
have been generally pleased with the support they receive from Westlaw
tech support and reference folks.  That certainly cannot be said of all
the computer folks we know as has already been suggested.  While I am
not in the trenches as many of you are, I think that we can work with
Westlaw to bring about over time changes either than make the text only
sight more functional or perhaps that make it less necessary.  The other
way to see the text only sight is as a means to have less clutter and
largely get good results as Phil suggests.  Rod, thanks for ! starting
this thread because I really think these are the kind of discussions for
which this list is so well suited, those that really are within the
primary purposes of our blindlaw list. Jim McCarthy

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
Behalf Of Philip Sklover
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:42 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] More reply to Alcidonis' post



	I have been an attorney for nearly four decades.  On two
occasions I managed appellate litigation for a Federal  agency.  I have
used the text version of Westlaw with considerable effectiveness and
success.  This has largely been due to the outstanding telephonic
training by Westlaw representative Kent Rinker.  While there are some
features of the regular Westlaw site which are not available to visually
impaired users, there are sufficient work-arounds to militate against
any substantial deficits.  Based on its simplicity, I have recommended
the text version of Westlaw to many sighted users on my staff.  

	I personally applaud Westlaw for its sensitivity to the needs of
visually impaired users.  I wish that Adobe with its PDF nightmare would
be as helpful.  

 




Philip B. Sklover
 
-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Patrick Brendan O'Reilly
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 2:34 PM
To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
Subject: [blindlaw] More reply to Alcidonis' post

Hmm. My point is that both Westlaw and Lexis have failed to make
available, accessible and usable the same features that make
computer-assisted research fast and effective for sighted users.

To my mind and for my money as a soon-to-be practicing attorney, a
text-only version of Westlaw or Lexis that strips away the tools that
make it possible to quickly narrow my results list does me no good. When
a blind person asks Westlaw or Lexis to make a text-only version
available, I think that the blind or visually impaired person is really
asking for a less-graphics intensive version of the same product that
sighted users have access to. Taking away research tools and features,
by definition, does not succeed in offering a text-only version of the
SAME product.

I further question whether it is in keeping with the spirit of the ADA
to provide an "accessible" product for the visually impaired that does
not, in fact, offer the user any of the same features that it affords to
sighted users beyond the opportunity to enter an initial search term.

In using ZoomText and Kurzweil, I found that Lexis worked a little bit
better than Westlaw.

All the same, my preference was to use the Windows accessibility tools
to increase the font sizes I saw online. In mot cases, this worked
pretty well. The only drqwback was that when I increased the font size
too much, some of the helpful tools expanded beyond the size of the
frame such that I could neither find nor use them.

I struggled with Westlaw, Lexis, and other law school related stuff
through my first year of law school. Then I had an eye surgery that has
enabled me to work with much less accommodation.

I spoke with my local Westlaw rep and spoke to one of Westlaw's
corporate vice presidents about these issues. Both were helpful in
steering me to the text-only product but neither could really do much to
offer the same features that sighted users have access to.

All the same, if you think there are any things related to your
pursuance of a law degree that you'd like to see in a disabled students
bill of rights, please email me those ideas and suggestions.

I, for one, think that a bill of rights should include a provision
stating
that:

All, blind, visually impaired, dyslexic, and otherwise differently abled
law students and lawyers shall enjoy access to all the same research
tools, aids, and scope narrowing features that sighted law students and
lawyers enjoy.

Do any of you have any other ideas for positive statements of rights
that you think the ABA should adopt?

Thanks,
Brendan O'Reilly


_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw