[gui-talk] Fwd: Accessibility Is A Right, Not a Charity, Convenience, Luxury or Privilege
Darrell Shandrow
nu7i at speakeasy.net
Sun Jul 22 22:58:50 CDT 2007
Hi Mike,
Accessibility is certainly mandated by the ADA, IDEA, Sections 504 and 508
of the Federal Rehabilitation Act and Section 255 of the Communications Act.
That's just here in the good old USA. Despite the limitations of these
various untested laws, anything we can make stick as a violation is a
violation of the law, and may be legally said to be a violation of our
rights under those laws.
All the same, if you take any time at all reading the Blind Access Journal
and the blogs of some other serious accessibility evangelists, you will
realize that we primarily consider accessibility to be an ethical, moral
and, sometimes, legal right.
If you don't want to get serious about insisting on accessibility, then,
IMHO, I think you should just turn off your computer, give it away, quit
your job and forget about participating in the online world. That's exactly
where the blind are headed in a real big hurry if we don't insist on nipping
access issues in the bud!
If you don't want to get a discussion going on a public mailing list, then,
perhaps, you should have thought better than to tell a real accessibility
advocate that he's "all wet"? Just a thought...
Please visit http://BlindWebAccess.com and sign the petition asking Yahoo!
to make their CAPTCHA accessible!
Darrell Shandrow - Accessibility Evangelist
Information should be accessible to us without need of translation by
another person.
Blind Access Journal blog and podcast: http://www.blindaccessjournal.com
Check out high quality telecommunications services at http://ld.net/?nu7i
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Accessibility Is A Right, Not a
Charity,Convenience, Luxury or Privilege
Hi, Darrell.
I was rather cryptic as I thought the ensuing discussion would be
off-topic for the list and did not wish to incur the ire of our esteemed
chief list administrator. Moreover, you and I have tangled on this
subject before and it seems most apropriate to me for us to agree to
disagree. However, I think I can put it most succinctly by observing
that nowhere in the Constitution or the various civil rights statutes
does it say that "access" is a right. Make no mistake: I think that
cyberspace *should* be ruled a place of public accommodation to which
ADA applies and I believe that web sites of government at all levels
should be accessible. But I fear me greatly that were a case maintaining
that cyberspace is a public accommodation to which Title III of ADA
applies to make it to the Supreme Court, the case would be lost with a
resounding thud! I don't think it would be easy to reverse such a
decision by either re-hearing or Congressional action.
Finally, I am not absolutely convinced that we know where to draw the
line as to what is our responsibility viz. access and what is the
responsibility of outside entities such as software/hardware vendors or
screen-reader manufacturers. I do know this: to the extent that we rely
upon mandating of access solutions, to that same extent will we forever
be behind the eight ball and playing catch-up in terms of technological
access. There's no easy solution but all of us are right to worry about
the problem.
Warmly,
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Darrell Shandrow
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Accessibility Is A Right, Not a
Charity,Convenience, Luxury or Privilege
Hi Mike,
That's really constructive there; would you mind elaborating?
Please visit http://BlindWebAccess.com and sign the petition asking
Yahoo!
to make their CAPTCHA accessible!
Darrell Shandrow - Accessibility Evangelist
Information should be accessible to us without need of translation by
another person.
Blind Access Journal blog and podcast:
http://www.blindaccessjournal.com
Check out high quality telecommunications services at
http://ld.net/?nu7i
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Accessibility Is A Right, Not a
Charity,Convenience, Luxury or Privilege
Methinks he's all wet!
Peace!
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Pattison
To: GUI Talk ; Access-L
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:09 PM
Subject: [gui-talk] Fwd: Accessibility Is A Right, Not a Charity,
Convenience, Luxury or Privilege
>From: blindnews-bounces at blindprogramming.com
>
>Accessibility Is A Right, Not a Charity, Convenience, Luxury or
Privilege
>
>By Darrell Shandrow
>Blind Access Journal, July 21, 2007
>
>Blind Access Journal is almost three years old. We will be
celebrating our
>third anniversary of concerted online accessibility evangelism on
December
>17,2007. Now that we have embarked on our second major CAPTCHA
(visual
>verification) accessibility initiative, I thought it would be a
good
idea to
>make the agenda of Blind Access Journal plainly clear to both long
time and
>new readers. The overarching statement we consistently make in the
pages of
>this journal is: "accessibility is a right". Accessibility provides
blind
>and visually impaired people with the opportunity to participate in
society
>on terms of equality with the sighted. Inaccessibility excludes the
blind
>and visually impaired, resulting in exactly the opposite condition.
We must
>have accessibility in the form of "reasonable accomodations" that
permit us
>to participate, in order that we may be afforded the opportunities
to
live,
>learn and work in the world around us. Though we greatly appreciate
anyone
>who is willing to work cooperatively with us, we must also keep in
mind that
>full and equal participation of the blind in society ought not,
ultimately,
>be a charity, convenience, luxury or privilege, but rather a human
right in
>just the same way as those earned by women, minorities and other
groups of
>human beings who have found themselves disallowed from full
participation in
>one or more important elements of their society at different times
in
>history.
>
>The concept of charity revolves around the ability and willingness
of
people
>who have something (clothing, food, shelter) to share that wealth
with those
>less fortunate. Rescue Missions, soup kitchens and other efforts to
feed and
>shelter the homeless population are excellent examples of wonderful
>charities. In many cases, these organizations simply hand out food
to
the
>people who are eligible for their services. We also have
non-profit,
>"charitable" organizations within the blind community that provide
us
with
>opportunities we would not otherwise be granted from companies in
the
>business sector. Benetech and The Seeing Eye are excellent examples
of two
>such organizations. Benetech now provides over 35,000 scanned
electronic
>books to its subscribers, increasing their opportunities to read
for
>entertainment and educational purposes. The Seeing Eye provides
trained
>guide dogs to blind and visually impaired people to increase our
ability to
>safely move through the world around us. Organizations like
Benetech,
The
>Seeing Eye and many others are charities in that they are
non-profit,
tax
>exempt entities with a mission to provide services not otherwise
available
>to a minority population. In this sense, the concept of charity is
quite
>positive. Unfortunately, there's another side to the concept of
charity that
>is not so great with respect to accessibility issues.
>
>In the old days, perhaps as recently as the 1960's here in the
United
States
>and today in other parts of the world, blind beggars would stand on
street
>corners handing out pencils and accepting coins from passers by
dropped into
>a can or cap. In the modern world, most blind people receive
monthly
checks,
>such as those from Social Security here in the United States, as a
>replacement to begging. In both cases, begging and Social Security
checks
>simply represent a way for society to show charity toward a group
of
people
>deemed too needy to effectively care for themselves. Since the
blind
endure
>an approximate 75 percent unemployment rate, the continuation of
this
>charity remains absolutely critical. Unfortunately, there is a
dirty
little
>secret to this form of charity. The concept involves the assumption
that
>these poor, pitiful handicapped people should be grateful for
whatever they
>get and should thus take their charity and leave everyone else
alone.
People
>harboring such attitudes tend to feel, whether consciously or not,
that
>whatever small measures they take to help us should be good enough.
Any
>indication on our part that their actions may not be sufficiently
helpful is
>written off as whining and complaining and met either with silence
or, when
>we are lucky, with a statement of this attitude. They resent any
insistance
>that a better job be done to work with us for a more positive
result.
Karen
>and I call this a settle-for-less attitude, for lack of a better
label. This
>settle-for-less attitude is deeply and profoundly offensive to
those
of us
>who simply feel we must be granted the same opportunities as people
without
>disabilities.
>
>Unfortunately, many government agencies, businesses and even some
non-profit
>organizations continue to take this settle-for-less attitude with
us.
For
>example, paratransit providers like East Valley Dial-A-Ride here in
Arizona
>often take the attitude that "we're doing the best we can" while
refusing to
>hold themselves accountable for errors, act professionally with
their
>customers or listen to constructive input from the community. This
same
>attitude and approach to challenges is often clearly evident in the
people
>working for the Social Security Administration, Vocational
Rehabilitation
>and many other agencies and organizations with a mission to help
people with
>disabilities. While people with disabilities are required to follow
the
>provider's policies to the letter as a condition of receiving the
help they
>need, the provider feels free to violate their stated
responsibilities,
>often without as much as a sincere apology and explanation of the
actions
>that will be taken to insure the violation is not repeated in the
future.
>The settle-for-less attitude is even clearly evident on the
Internet.
>
>Many web sites now feature a CAPTCHA (also known as visual
verification)
>during the registration process or even as a condition of
completing
>business transactions. The CAPTCHAs are designed to make abuse of
the
web
>site virtually impossible for scripts and other automated computer
programs,
>requiring that a real human being be present to pass the test. The
customer
>or user is asked to look at a picture of a string of distorted
characters
>and enter them correctly into an edit box in order to be permitted
passage
>to the promised land they seek. Some web companies, such as America
Online,
>Google and PRWeb offer an audio playback of the characters as an
alternative
>for the blind, visually impaired or even sighted users who simply
need a
>different way to pass the CAPTCHA test. The job of implementing
audio
>CAPTCHA on any given web site has become much easier over the past
year. For
>example, the FormShield CAPTCHA tool for the Microsoft .Net
platform
>provides quite an effective audio and visual verification scheme.
Another
>example is the free ReCAPTCHA service that provides audio and
visual
>CAPTCHAs that also serve to assist in the process of the optical
character
>recognition of books from print into digital formats. There is even
an
>example of a text-based CAPTCHA, WP-Gatekeeper that permits readers
of
>WordPress blogs to post their comments after answering a basic,
text-based
>challenge question. Though the audio CAPTCHA continues to exclude
some
>users, such as the deaf-blind, it represents the current
technological
>state-of-the-art, and there's absolutely no excuse at this point
for
any web
>site to be using a CAPTCHA without at least an audio playback as a
>reasonable accomodation for the blind and visually impaired.
Concerted
>research and development must continue in order to ultimately
devise
and
>implement solutions that can tell computers and humans apart in a
method
>that is non-censory, so that all human beings will be able to pass
such
>tests and access online resources.
>
>Unfortunately, there still exist many companies and organizations
on
the web
>that insist on the settle-for-less attitude. Two examples are
Yahoo!
and
>Western Oregon University. Yahoo! invites the blind person to
complete a
>separate form and wait for a human to call back in order to
complete
the
>action protected by the CAPTCHA, while WOU invites blind students
to
contact
>a telephone number that is supposedly staffed 24x7 in order to
receive
>assistance. A student at Western Oregon University has told me that
the
>results of their CAPTCHA accomodation have been less than
acceptable.
Many
>blind Yahoo! users tell us that, after completing the form as
requested, the
>promised callback from Yahoo! personnel simply never comes, even
after
>numerous attempts to request help. A petition has recently been
initiated
>asking Yahoo! to add an audio alternative to their CAPTCHA. Western
Oregon
>University, Yahoo! and all other web site operators that either
provide no
>accomodation at all to their CAPTCHA or provide a manual process
requiring
>human intervention are examples of those who seem to believe in the
>settle-for-less attitude. When no accomodation is offered, a blind
person
>must rely on the help of a sighted individual, who may not be
available for
>hours or even days. Many manual intervention approaches tend to
result in no
>follow up at all or the follow up comes hours to days after the
request for
>help is made by the blind person. In both cases, either no access
is
>provided at all or the access is vastly inferior to that granted
sighted
>users, who are allowed instant gratification as soon as they are
able
to
>pass the visual verification process. Some in the blind community,
myself
>included, feel that the current state of affairs with inaccessible
CAPTCHA
>is tantamount to the segregation experienced by African-Americans
before the
>mid to late 1960's.
>
>A convenience or luxury item is clearly defined as something that
is
nice to
>have but is not required in order to fill basic needs such as food,
clothing
>and shelter. For most people in society, the acquisition of those
basics
>ultimately requires gainful, paid employment. Most jobs now require
the
>employee to use a computer and other electronic office equipment.
If
an
>employee is unable to use one or more critical job-related computer
>programs, they are unable to be considered as candidates for the
position or
>may lose their existing employment. This happens to blind people on
a
>regular basis. It would have happened to me in February of 2006,
had
I not
>put my foot down and absolutely insisted on a better outcome. We
are
>regularly receiving testimonials from others experiencing
situations
where
>their employment is in jeopardy simply due to a lack of cooperation
on the
>part of software developers to make reasonable accomodations that
would
>allow their software to function with screen readers and other
assistive
>technology. These accessibility issues are further frustrated by
the
fact
>that most of the currently entrenched screen reader manufacturers
refuse to
>innovate in ways that would increase the usability of those
applications
>that have already been identified as inaccessible. It is absolutely
critical
>that all assistive technology companies focus on innovation and
stop
>engaging in destructive, unproductive, wasteful efforts such as
filing
>lawsuits and other similar anti-competitive moves.
>
>In addition to technology access concerns, transportation is an
issue
for
>many blind and visually impaired individuals. Most sighted people
drive
>themselves to work, while a small percentage of the sighted ride
the
bus,
>subway or some similar form of public transportation. While most
blind
>people are able to safely utilize buses or subways, many are not
for
various
>reasons. Those who can't take advantage of the regular public
transportation
>system in a city may rely on a paratransit service such as
Dial-A-Ride. When
>a paratransit service causes their customer to be late to their job
due to
>an issue outside the customer's control, the employee may be
written
up and,
>ultimately, may lose their job altogether, even after successfully
working
>around the technology access challenges. Such scenarios are, of
course, also
>quite inexcusable.
>
>Accessibility is not a convenience or luxury item! We must have
equal
>accessibility to information and transportation in order to educate
>ourselves and acquire gainful, paid employment. It is just that
simple and
>obvious. Consideration of accessibility as a convenience or luxury
item is
>another component of the settle-for-less attitude demonstrated all
too often
>by the agencies, assistive technology companies and organizations
with a
>stated mission to help us, Federal, state and local government
agencies
>charged with the duty to serve all citizens, the developers of
mainstream
>products and services and even most blind people who are willing to
accept
>inaccessibility without insisting on something better. When we
encounter a
>case of inaccessibility that holds us back, we must start by
politely
asking
>for positive change, but we must also be willing to insist on the
right
>thing being done and, even, demand equal accessibility when
necessary. In
>most cases, sadly, accessibility is going to continue under the
>settle-for-less banner unless we, the blind and visually impaired
community
>negatively impacted by the lack of equal opportunity caused by
>inaccessibility, stand up and take action!
>
>Although most sighted people in modern times would probably
consider
it a
>right, the ability to drive an automobile is actually an excellent
example
>of a privilege. The driver must pass a test showing basic
competencies,
>acquire a driver's license and purchase the vehicle along with auto
>insurance, fuel and maintenance. Only after that do all the
components exist
>for driving. Driving most certainly requires either gainful
employment,
>retirement income in the case of senior citizens or some other
substantial
>form of financial support. You do not have a legal right to drive a
car. If
>you are willing to use public transportation or walk, you do not
need
to
>drive in order to meet your basic food, clothing and shelter needs.
You can
>acquire most forms of education or employmehnt without independent
use of a
>vehicle. The case is similar with luxury items, such as cable
television or
>the ability to eat dinner out at a nice restaurant once in awhile.
Of
>course, when accessibility allows blind people to acquire paid
work,
we are
>sometimes afforded these luxuries equivalent to similar
opportunities
>afforded the sighted.
>
>Accessibility is clearly not a luxury item or a privilege. Equal
access
>places us on a level playing field with our sighted peers, so that
we
may
>equally participate with them in society for the purpose of meeting
our
>basic needs as well as acquiring conveniences and luxury items when
>available resources allow. We are not able to meet those basic
needs,
much
>less acquire conveniences and luxury items, without the
accessibility
>afforded by reasonable accomodations. No accomodation at all is
never
>reasonable. Sighted people employed by or in leadership positions
at
>agencies, companies, government institutions or organizations ought
to be
>empathetic, understanding how they might like to be accomodated if
they or a
>close friend or relative were blind or visually impaired. Blind
people must
>learn to become better, more persistent advocates for themselves as
well as
>evangelists for the good message of equal accessibility.
Accessibility is
>simply the ethical, moral, and sometimes legal, right thing to do!
I
can
>imagine the great things that could happen if an increasing number
of
blind
>and visually impaired people would simply take more actions to
convince,
>insist and, sometimes, demand more sighted people to become
empathetic or,
>at least, do the right thing as a result of relentless pressure
applied in
>the right amounts and circumstances. I believe the "if you build
it,
they
>will come" approach to accessibility evangelism can work if we, as
a
blind
>community, work much harder than we are now on both an individual
and
>organizational level to communicate with the assistive technology
companies
>and the developers of mainstream technology, reminding them of our
needs and
>our constant insistance on having them met effectively. Remember,
my
blind
>brothers and sisters, most sighted people still don't even know
that
we are
>able to use computers!
>
>www.blindaccessjournal.com/2007/07/accessibility-is-right-not-charity.html
Regards Steve
Email: srp at internode.on.net
Skype: steve1963
MSN Messenger: internetuser383 at hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
More information about the gui-talk
mailing list