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

[Mike Freeman]

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
-------------- next part --------------
Methinks he's all wet!
 
Peace!
 
Mike
 
----- Original Message -----
From:
mailto:srp at internode.on.net Steve Pattison
To:
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org GUI Talk
; mailto:access-l at access-l.com 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: mailto:blindnews-bounces at blindprogramming.com 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:  mailto:srp at internode.on.net srp at internode.on.net
Skype:  steve1963
MSN Messenger:  mailto:internetuser383 at hotmail.com internetuser383 at hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk