[gui-talk] Fwd: Accessibility Is A Right, Not a Charity, Convenience, Luxury or Privilege
Mike Freeman
k7uij at panix.com
Sun Jul 22 22:19:29 CDT 2007
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
-------------- next part --------------
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:
mailto:nu7i at speakeasy.net Darrell Shandrow
To:
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org 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 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 http://www.blindaccessjournal.com
Check out high quality telecommunications services at http://ld.net/?nu7i http://ld.net/?nu7i
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Freeman" < mailto:k7uij at panix.com k7uij at panix.com
>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" < mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org 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: 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the gui-talk
mailing list