[gui-talk] eftps site accessibility

[Jude DaShiell]

While true a blind person could probably buy a scanner and write it off 
as a disability-related deduction the scanner would probably have to be 
mid-range in performance to handle the printed material.  A blind person 
in that same year might also have to do a write off for a computer to 
attach to that scanner and might either be able to use a low cost or 
high cost screen reader solution which they might also have to write off 
if they didn't have a Government agency available to help them out in 
the employment context.  Such a blind person probably wouldn't be able 
to write the computer off.  Alternatively, a blind person will have to 
have others deal with printed material for them without such resources 
available prior to the need.  A possibility might be to find a notary 
public who has to read documents for sighted people in the course of 
their work and pay them properly for their services that's in the event 
no trusted people or relatives are within reasonable distance to help 
out.
One consideration for any organization advocating the use of braille 
(the demand side) that ought to be at front of mind with each policy 
decision taken is (how do the organizations policy decisions effect the 
supply side).  An advocating organization logically wouldn't want to 
have different parts of the organization on different pages on a 
particular advocacy issue or that organization would be correctly 
perceived as engaging in Kabuki on that particular advocacy issue.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Hoffman, Allen wrote:

> I think there are limits to expectations of instant access.  It is
> simply not reasonable in my view to expect that as a blind person you
> won't have to handle printed materials now and then, and you should take
> steps to address that in your life.  While I also think the IRS could
> provide alternative authentication solutions for people who can't access
> the printed material, such as cell phone validation of text message,
> etc.  The point of the printed physical item is most likely to bring the
> authentication level up to two factor--e.g. something you have, and
> something you know.  Sometimes to acheive all goals some have to give
> and sometimes we can't achieve them all simultaneously.  I think the
> points of can this work better are sound points, but doing it with an
> attitude like the IRS doesn't care is a poor approach in my view.  IRS
> employs more blind folks in comparison to almost any other employer so
> definitely knows some about meeting needs of visually impaired.  This
> may be an oversight, or a simple adherence to reality that they need two
> factor authentication and this is the shortest path to success.  Braille
> alternative outputs would be nice, but do you think they would be
> reliable--I think it would be a big expense on the government for such a
> small activity.  If there was standard way to do this I'd be all for
> getting IRS onboard--or they could be seen as a pioneer if they take
> this up and find a solution.  so at the end of the day I'd suggest
> promoting accessibility without the chip on the shoulder since it
> probably will get more results.  I realize somedays the continual
> frustration of one stupid inaccessibility after another can wear you
> down, but frankly, problems are not the domain of the disabled alone.
>  
> anyway take a step back and encourage IRS to provide alternatives for
> you, but don't expect them this year.
>  
>  
>  
> Allen Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> gui-talk mailing list
> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for gui-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/jdashiel%40shellworld.net
> 
> 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Jude <jdashiel-at-shellworld-dot-net>
<http://www.shellworld.net/~jdashiel/nj.html>