[gui-talk] Fwd: Accessibility Is A Right, Not a Charity, Convenience, Luxury or Privilege

[Darrell Shandrow]

Hi David,

Of course, I have not ever said that "one big thing" we could do would ever 
solve the problem, and, well, yes, I do believe the access problems are 
accelerating at an ever-increasing rate.  Despite all the limitations in the 
laws, we must all decide that accessibility is a right (whether that means a 
legal right or simply the right thing to do) and then take steps to promote 
it on both an individual and organizational level.



Please visit http://BlindWebAccess.com and sign the petition asking Yahoo! 
to make their CAPTCHA accessible!
Darrell Shandrow - Accessibility Evangelist
Information should be accessible to us without need of translation by 
another person.
Blind Access Journal blog and podcast: http://www.blindaccessjournal.com
Check out high quality telecommunications services at http://ld.net/?nu7i
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Accessibility Is A Right, Not a Charity, 
Convenience, Luxury or Privilege


Darryl:

The legal aspects may well be more limited then we would like to believe. 
There is much "where readily achievable," and not "fundamentally changing 
the nature of a business," etc;. fudge language in ADA etc.

As to the morality and ethics of the thing, each of us has to decide for 
ourselves.

Finally, you mention "nipping the access thing in the bud."  I think you are 
missing an historical perspective here, we have been fighting this one in 
one way or another since technology came along, and it will continue.  If 
you think we will "nip it in the bud" then you are pretty naive.  That 
implies we will do one big thing, and the problems will be solved.  The 
world doesn't work that way.

Dave

At 10:58 PM 7/22/2007, you wrote:
>Hi Mike,
>
>Accessibility is certainly mandated by the ADA, IDEA, Sections 504 and 508
>of the Federal Rehabilitation Act and Section 255 of the Communications 
>Act.
>That's just here in the good old USA.  Despite the limitations of these
>various untested laws, anything we can make stick as a violation is a
>violation of the law, and may be legally said to be a violation of our
>rights under those laws.
>
>All the same, if you take any time at all reading the Blind Access Journal
>and the blogs of some other serious accessibility evangelists, you will
>realize that we primarily consider accessibility to be an ethical, moral
>and, sometimes, legal right.
>
>If you don't want to get serious about insisting on accessibility, then,
>IMHO, I think you should just turn off your computer, give it away, quit
>your job and forget about participating in the online world.  That's 
>exactly
>where the blind are headed in a real big hurry if we don't insist on 
>nipping
>access issues in the bud!
>
>If you don't want to get a discussion going on a public mailing list, then,
>perhaps, you should have thought better than to tell a real accessibility
>advocate that he's "all wet"?  Just a thought...
>
>
>Please visit http://BlindWebAccess.com and sign the petition asking Yahoo!
>to make their CAPTCHA accessible!
>Darrell Shandrow - Accessibility Evangelist
>Information should be accessible to us without need of translation by
>another person.
>Blind Access Journal blog and podcast: http://www.blindaccessjournal.com
>Check out high quality telecommunications services at http://ld.net/?nu7i
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 8:19 PM
>Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Accessibility Is A Right, Not a
>Charity,Convenience, Luxury or Privilege
>
>
>Hi, Darrell.
>
>I was rather cryptic as I thought the ensuing discussion would be
>off-topic for the list and did not wish to incur the ire of our esteemed
>chief list administrator. Moreover, you and I have tangled on this
>subject before and it seems most apropriate to me for us to agree to
>disagree. However, I think I can put it most succinctly by observing
>that nowhere in the Constitution or the various civil rights statutes
>does it say that "access" is a right. Make no mistake: I think that
>cyberspace *should* be ruled a place of public accommodation to which
>ADA applies and I believe that web sites of government at all levels
>should be accessible. But I fear me greatly that were a case maintaining
>that cyberspace is a public accommodation to which Title III of ADA
>applies to make it to the Supreme Court, the case would be lost with a
>resounding thud! I don't think it would be easy to reverse such a
>decision by either re-hearing or Congressional action.
>
>Finally, I am not absolutely convinced that we know where to draw the
>line as to what is our responsibility viz. access and what is the
>responsibility of outside entities such as software/hardware vendors or
>screen-reader manufacturers. I do know this: to the extent that we rely
>upon mandating of access solutions, to that same extent will we forever
>be behind the eight ball and playing catch-up in terms of technological
>access. There's no easy solution but all of us are right to worry about
>the problem.
>
>Warmly,
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Darrell Shandrow
>  To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
>  Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:41 PM
>  Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Accessibility Is A Right, Not a
>Charity,Convenience, Luxury or Privilege
>
>
>  Hi Mike,
>
>  That's really constructive there; would you mind elaborating?
>
>  Please visit http://BlindWebAccess.com and sign the petition asking
>Yahoo!
>  to make their CAPTCHA accessible!
>  Darrell Shandrow - Accessibility Evangelist
>  Information should be accessible to us without need of translation by
>  another person.
>  Blind Access Journal blog and podcast:
>http://www.blindaccessjournal.com
>  Check out high quality telecommunications services at
>http://ld.net/?nu7i
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>  To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
>  Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:32 PM
>  Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Accessibility Is A Right, Not a
>  Charity,Convenience, Luxury or Privilege
>
>
>  Methinks he's all wet!
>
>  Peace!
>
>  Mike
>
>    ----- Original Message ----- 
>    From: Steve Pattison
>    To: GUI Talk ; Access-L
>    Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:09 PM
>    Subject: [gui-talk] Fwd: Accessibility Is A Right, Not a Charity,
>  Convenience, Luxury or Privilege
>
>
>
>    >From: blindnews-bounces at blindprogramming.com
>    >
>    >Accessibility Is A Right, Not a Charity, Convenience, Luxury or
>  Privilege
>    >
>    >By Darrell Shandrow
>    >Blind Access Journal, July 21, 2007
>    >
>    >Blind Access Journal is almost three years old. We will be
>  celebrating our
>    >third anniversary of concerted online accessibility evangelism on
>  December
>    >17,2007. Now that we have embarked on our second major CAPTCHA
>  (visual
>    >verification) accessibility initiative, I thought it would be a
>good
>  idea to
>    >make the agenda of Blind Access Journal plainly clear to both long
>  time and
>    >new readers. The overarching statement we consistently make in the
>  pages of
>    >this journal is: "accessibility is a right". Accessibility provides
>  blind
>    >and visually impaired people with the opportunity to participate in
>  society
>    >on terms of equality with the sighted. Inaccessibility excludes the
>  blind
>    >and visually impaired, resulting in exactly the opposite condition.
>  We must
>    >have accessibility in the form of "reasonable accomodations" that
>  permit us
>    >to participate, in order that we may be afforded the opportunities
>to
>  live,
>    >learn and work in the world around us. Though we greatly appreciate
>  anyone
>    >who is willing to work cooperatively with us, we must also keep in
>  mind that
>    >full and equal participation of the blind in society ought not,
>  ultimately,
>    >be a charity, convenience, luxury or privilege, but rather a human
>  right in
>    >just the same way as those earned by women, minorities and other
>  groups of
>    >human beings who have found themselves disallowed from full
>  participation in
>    >one or more important elements of their society at different times
>in
>    >history.
>    >
>    >The concept of charity revolves around the ability and willingness
>of
>  people
>    >who have something (clothing, food, shelter) to share that wealth
>  with those
>    >less fortunate. Rescue Missions, soup kitchens and other efforts to
>  feed and
>    >shelter the homeless population are excellent examples of wonderful
>    >charities. In many cases, these organizations simply hand out food
>to
>  the
>    >people who are eligible for their services. We also have
>non-profit,
>    >"charitable" organizations within the blind community that provide
>us
>  with
>    >opportunities we would not otherwise be granted from companies in
>the
>    >business sector. Benetech and The Seeing Eye are excellent examples
>  of two
>    >such organizations. Benetech now provides over 35,000 scanned
>  electronic
>    >books to its subscribers, increasing their opportunities to read
>for
>    >entertainment and educational purposes. The Seeing Eye provides
>  trained
>    >guide dogs to blind and visually impaired people to increase our
>  ability to
>    >safely move through the world around us. Organizations like
>Benetech,
>  The
>    >Seeing Eye and many others are charities in that they are
>non-profit,
>  tax
>    >exempt entities with a mission to provide services not otherwise
>  available
>    >to a minority population. In this sense, the concept of charity is
>  quite
>    >positive. Unfortunately, there's another side to the concept of
>  charity that
>    >is not so great with respect to accessibility issues.
>    >
>    >In the old days, perhaps as recently as the 1960's here in the
>United
>  States
>    >and today in other parts of the world, blind beggars would stand on
>  street
>    >corners handing out pencils and accepting coins from passers by
>  dropped into
>    >a can or cap. In the modern world, most blind people receive
>monthly
>  checks,
>    >such as those from Social Security here in the United States, as a
>    >replacement to begging. In both cases, begging and Social Security
>  checks
>    >simply represent a way for society to show charity toward a group
>of
>  people
>    >deemed too needy to effectively care for themselves. Since the
>blind
>  endure
>    >an approximate 75 percent unemployment rate, the continuation of
>this
>    >charity remains absolutely critical. Unfortunately, there is a
>dirty
>  little
>    >secret to this form of charity. The concept involves the assumption
>  that
>    >these poor, pitiful handicapped people should be grateful for
>  whatever they
>    >get and should thus take their charity and leave everyone else
>alone.
>  People
>    >harboring such attitudes tend to feel, whether consciously or not,
>  that
>    >whatever small measures they take to help us should be good enough.
>  Any
>    >indication on our part that their actions may not be sufficiently
>  helpful is
>    >written off as whining and complaining and met either with silence
>  or, when
>    >we are lucky, with a statement of this attitude. They resent any
>  insistance
>    >that a better job be done to work with us for a more positive
>result.
>  Karen
>    >and I call this a settle-for-less attitude, for lack of a better
>  label. This
>    >settle-for-less attitude is deeply and profoundly offensive to
>those
>  of us
>    >who simply feel we must be granted the same opportunities as people
>  without
>    >disabilities.
>    >
>    >Unfortunately, many government agencies, businesses and even some
>  non-profit
>    >organizations continue to take this settle-for-less attitude with
>us.
>  For
>    >example, paratransit providers like East Valley Dial-A-Ride here in
>  Arizona
>    >often take the attitude that "we're doing the best we can" while
>  refusing to
>    >hold themselves accountable for errors, act professionally with
>their
>    >customers or listen to constructive input from the community. This
>  same
>    >attitude and approach to challenges is often clearly evident in the
>  people
>    >working for the Social Security Administration, Vocational
>  Rehabilitation
>    >and many other agencies and organizations with a mission to help
>  people with
>    >disabilities. While people with disabilities are required to follow
>  the
>    >provider's policies to the letter as a condition of receiving the
>  help they
>    >need, the provider feels free to violate their stated
>  responsibilities,
>    >often without as much as a sincere apology and explanation of the
>  actions
>    >that will be taken to insure the violation is not repeated in the
>  future.
>    >The settle-for-less attitude is even clearly evident on the
>Internet.
>    >
>    >Many web sites now feature a CAPTCHA (also known as visual
>  verification)
>    >during the registration process or even as a condition of
>completing
>    >business transactions. The CAPTCHAs are designed to make abuse of
>the
>  web
>    >site virtually impossible for scripts and other automated computer
>  programs,
>    >requiring that a real human being be present to pass the test. The
>  customer
>    >or user is asked to look at a picture of a string of distorted
>  characters
>    >and enter them correctly into an edit box in order to be permitted
>  passage
>    >to the promised land they seek. Some web companies, such as America
>  Online,
>    >Google and PRWeb offer an audio playback of the characters as an
>  alternative
>    >for the blind, visually impaired or even sighted users who simply
>  need a
>    >different way to pass the CAPTCHA test. The job of implementing
>audio
>    >CAPTCHA on any given web site has become much easier over the past
>  year. For
>    >example, the FormShield CAPTCHA tool for the Microsoft .Net
>platform
>    >provides quite an effective audio and visual verification scheme.
>  Another
>    >example is the free ReCAPTCHA service that provides audio and
>visual
>    >CAPTCHAs that also serve to assist in the process of the optical
>  character
>    >recognition of books from print into digital formats. There is even
>  an
>    >example of a text-based CAPTCHA, WP-Gatekeeper that permits readers
>  of
>    >WordPress blogs to post their comments after answering a basic,
>  text-based
>    >challenge question. Though the audio CAPTCHA continues to exclude
>  some
>    >users, such as the deaf-blind, it represents the current
>  technological
>    >state-of-the-art, and there's absolutely no excuse at this point
>for
>  any web
>    >site to be using a CAPTCHA without at least an audio playback as a
>    >reasonable accomodation for the blind and visually impaired.
>  Concerted
>    >research and development must continue in order to ultimately
>devise
>  and
>    >implement solutions that can tell computers and humans apart in a
>  method
>    >that is non-censory, so that all human beings will be able to pass
>  such
>    >tests and access online resources.
>    >
>    >Unfortunately, there still exist many companies and organizations
>on
>  the web
>    >that insist on the settle-for-less attitude. Two examples are
>Yahoo!
>  and
>    >Western Oregon University. Yahoo! invites the blind person to
>  complete a
>    >separate form and wait for a human to call back in order to
>complete
>  the
>    >action protected by the CAPTCHA, while WOU invites blind students
>to
>  contact
>    >a telephone number that is supposedly staffed 24x7 in order to
>  receive
>    >assistance. A student at Western Oregon University has told me that
>  the
>    >results of their CAPTCHA accomodation have been less than
>acceptable.
>  Many
>    >blind Yahoo! users tell us that, after completing the form as
>  requested, the
>    >promised callback from Yahoo! personnel simply never comes, even
>  after
>    >numerous attempts to request help. A petition has recently been
>  initiated
>    >asking Yahoo! to add an audio alternative to their CAPTCHA. Western
>  Oregon
>    >University, Yahoo! and all other web site operators that either
>  provide no
>    >accomodation at all to their CAPTCHA or provide a manual process
>  requiring
>    >human intervention are examples of those who seem to believe in the
>    >settle-for-less attitude. When no accomodation is offered, a blind
>  person
>    >must rely on the help of a sighted individual, who may not be
>  available for
>    >hours or even days. Many manual intervention approaches tend to
>  result in no
>    >follow up at all or the follow up comes hours to days after the
>  request for
>    >help is made by the blind person. In both cases, either no access
>is
>    >provided at all or the access is vastly inferior to that granted
>  sighted
>    >users, who are allowed instant gratification as soon as they are
>able
>  to
>    >pass the visual verification process. Some in the blind community,
>  myself
>    >included, feel that the current state of affairs with inaccessible
>  CAPTCHA
>    >is tantamount to the segregation experienced by African-Americans
>  before the
>    >mid to late 1960's.
>    >
>    >A convenience or luxury item is clearly defined as something that
>is
>  nice to
>    >have but is not required in order to fill basic needs such as food,
>  clothing
>    >and shelter. For most people in society, the acquisition of those
>  basics
>    >ultimately requires gainful, paid employment. Most jobs now require
>  the
>    >employee to use a computer and other electronic office equipment.
>If
>  an
>    >employee is unable to use one or more critical job-related computer
>    >programs, they are unable to be considered as candidates for the
>  position or
>    >may lose their existing employment. This happens to blind people on
>a
>    >regular basis. It would have happened to me in February of 2006,
>had
>  I not
>    >put my foot down and absolutely insisted on a better outcome. We
>are
>    >regularly receiving testimonials from others experiencing
>situations
>  where
>    >their employment is in jeopardy simply due to a lack of cooperation
>  on the
>    >part of software developers to make reasonable accomodations that
>  would
>    >allow their software to function with screen readers and other
>  assistive
>    >technology. These accessibility issues are further frustrated by
>the
>  fact
>    >that most of the currently entrenched screen reader manufacturers
>  refuse to
>    >innovate in ways that would increase the usability of those
>  applications
>    >that have already been identified as inaccessible. It is absolutely
>  critical
>    >that all assistive technology companies focus on innovation and
>stop
>    >engaging in destructive, unproductive, wasteful efforts such as
>  filing
>    >lawsuits and other similar anti-competitive moves.
>    >
>    >In addition to technology access concerns, transportation is an
>issue
>  for
>    >many blind and visually impaired individuals. Most sighted people
>  drive
>    >themselves to work, while a small percentage of the sighted ride
>the
>  bus,
>    >subway or some similar form of public transportation. While most
>  blind
>    >people are able to safely utilize buses or subways, many are not
>for
>  various
>    >reasons. Those who can't take advantage of the regular public
>  transportation
>    >system in a city may rely on a paratransit service such as
>  Dial-A-Ride. When
>    >a paratransit service causes their customer to be late to their job
>  due to
>    >an issue outside the customer's control, the employee may be
>written
>  up and,
>    >ultimately, may lose their job altogether, even after successfully
>  working
>    >around the technology access challenges. Such scenarios are, of
>  course, also
>    >quite inexcusable.
>    >
>    >Accessibility is not a convenience or luxury item! We must have
>equal
>    >accessibility to information and transportation in order to educate
>    >ourselves and acquire gainful, paid employment. It is just that
>  simple and
>    >obvious. Consideration of accessibility as a convenience or luxury
>  item is
>    >another component of the settle-for-less attitude demonstrated all
>  too often
>    >by the agencies, assistive technology companies and organizations
>  with a
>    >stated mission to help us, Federal, state and local government
>  agencies
>    >charged with the duty to serve all citizens, the developers of
>  mainstream
>    >products and services and even most blind people who are willing to
>  accept
>    >inaccessibility without insisting on something better. When we
>  encounter a
>    >case of inaccessibility that holds us back, we must start by
>politely
>  asking
>    >for positive change, but we must also be willing to insist on the
>  right
>    >thing being done and, even, demand equal accessibility when
>  necessary. In
>    >most cases, sadly, accessibility is going to continue under the
>    >settle-for-less banner unless we, the blind and visually impaired
>  community
>    >negatively impacted by the lack of equal opportunity caused by
>    >inaccessibility, stand up and take action!
>    >
>    >Although most sighted people in modern times would probably
>consider
>  it a
>    >right, the ability to drive an automobile is actually an excellent
>  example
>    >of a privilege. The driver must pass a test showing basic
>  competencies,
>    >acquire a driver's license and purchase the vehicle along with auto
>    >insurance, fuel and maintenance. Only after that do all the
>  components exist
>    >for driving. Driving most certainly requires either gainful
>  employment,
>    >retirement income in the case of senior citizens or some other
>  substantial
>    >form of financial support. You do not have a legal right to drive a
>  car. If
>    >you are willing to use public transportation or walk, you do not
>need
>  to
>    >drive in order to meet your basic food, clothing and shelter needs.
>  You can
>    >acquire most forms of education or employmehnt without independent
>  use of a
>    >vehicle. The case is similar with luxury items, such as cable
>  television or
>    >the ability to eat dinner out at a nice restaurant once in awhile.
>Of
>    >course, when accessibility allows blind people to acquire paid
>work,
>  we are
>    >sometimes afforded these luxuries equivalent to similar
>opportunities
>    >afforded the sighted.
>    >
>    >Accessibility is clearly not a luxury item or a privilege. Equal
>  access
>    >places us on a level playing field with our sighted peers, so that
>we
>  may
>    >equally participate with them in society for the purpose of meeting
>  our
>    >basic needs as well as acquiring conveniences and luxury items when
>    >available resources allow. We are not able to meet those basic
>needs,
>  much
>    >less acquire conveniences and luxury items, without the
>accessibility
>    >afforded by reasonable accomodations. No accomodation at all is
>never
>    >reasonable. Sighted people employed by or in leadership positions
>at
>    >agencies, companies, government institutions or organizations ought
>  to be
>    >empathetic, understanding how they might like to be accomodated if
>  they or a
>    >close friend or relative were blind or visually impaired. Blind
>  people must
>    >learn to become better, more persistent advocates for themselves as
>  well as
>    >evangelists for the good message of equal accessibility.
>  Accessibility is
>    >simply the ethical, moral, and sometimes legal, right thing to do!
>I
>  can
>    >imagine the great things that could happen if an increasing number
>of
>  blind
>    >and visually impaired people would simply take more actions to
>  convince,
>    >insist and, sometimes, demand more sighted people to become
>  empathetic or,
>    >at least, do the right thing as a result of relentless pressure
>  applied in
>    >the right amounts and circumstances. I believe the "if you build
>it,
>  they
>    >will come" approach to accessibility evangelism can work if we, as
>a
>  blind
>    >community, work much harder than we are now on both an individual
>and
>    >organizational level to communicate with the assistive technology
>  companies
>    >and the developers of mainstream technology, reminding them of our
>  needs and
>    >our constant insistance on having them met effectively. Remember,
>my
>  blind
>    >brothers and sisters, most sighted people still don't even know
>that
>  we are
>    >able to use computers!
>    >
> 
>  >www.blindaccessjournal.com/2007/07/accessibility-is-right-not-charity.html
>
>    Regards Steve
>    Email:  srp at internode.on.net
>    Skype:  steve1963
>    MSN Messenger:  internetuser383 at hotmail.com
>    _______________________________________________
>    gui-talk mailing list
>    gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>    http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
>
>
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  gui-talk mailing list
>  gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>  http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  gui-talk mailing list
>  gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>  http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
>
>__________ NOD32 2411 (20070721) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.eset.com

_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk