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

[Darrell Shandrow]

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