[nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
Aaron Cannon
cannona at fireantproductions.com
Wed May 14 07:48:10 CDT 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Mike is totally correct.
I am currently working as an accessibility consultant, and it is extremely
difficult to come up with good rules that we can hand to our designers and
say, "here. Go do this and every time you'll get an accessible site."
There are no recipes.
The best we can do is teach our designers as much as possible about
accessibility, hand them a few rules that usually work, and conduct expert
reviews of the finished product. That's not all we're doing, but it is a
reasonably good overview without getting into too many details.
Aaron
- --
Skype: cannona
MSN/Windows Messenger: cannona at hotmail.com (don't send email to the hotmail
address.)
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Bullis" <mabullis at hotmail.com>
To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:14 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
> Yes. It does frustrate me that we can't develop a set of tools that will
> make (in quotes) any given site accessible. It's frankly more of an art
> in
> some areas than a science. That's a big problem for us. It means that
> there aren't a simple set of rules and standard sets of tools that will,
> without fail, make any given site accessible. Somehow we've got to get
> closer to that because without it we're always going to be vulnerable in
> ways that make me very nervous.
> Mike B
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk-bounces+mabullis=hotmail.com at nfbnet.org
> [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces+mabullis=hotmail.com at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> Mike
> Freeman
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:54 PM
> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
>
> Mike:
>
> As should have become obvious over the past few days, I agree with you
> completely. I'm more worried about the accessible currency issue reaching
> the Supreme Court than about its merit or lack thereof per se also.
>
> And I agree with you about the accessible web site issue. However, I must
> say that there's an additional wrinkle on this one: how does one define in
> legally-exact language, what "accessible" means? It's a moving target.
> And,
> to some degree, how accessible a given site is depends upon the skill of
> the
> blind user and of his/her level of knowledge of his/her access technology.
>
> Moreover, styles of web programming are constantly evolving and so it's
> not
> always easy to delineate where the boundary between the area of
> responsibility of the web programmer and that of the access technology
> designer lies. And, as I say, this adds to the difficulty of truly writing
> access legislation that has any chance of relevancy for anything but a
> brief
> period.
>
> It seems to me that often, "accessibility" ends up being like Potter
> Stewart's observation of pornography: "I can't define it but I know it
> when
> I see it!". It's not easy to define accessibility but it's obvious to us
> when a given piece of software or web site is accesible (or, more often,
> is
> not).
>
> As the stomach turns ....
>
> Mike Freeman
> .. "It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly." -- Anatole
> France
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Bullis
> To: 'NFB Talk Mailing List'
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
>
>
> I'll take one more whack at this topic. First of all I should say
> that this
> thread has been one of the most interesting for me in quite some time.
> But,
> it does sound like it's degenerating a bit.
>
> Just a word about the supposed inconsistencies in NFB's philosophy.
> The
> reason we vote on resolutions is that there are not always bright
> lines that
> can be drawn leaving accessible money on one side and accessible
> voting
> machines on the other. I wish there were. Furthermore, people of
> good will
> disagree about whether, or how much, backlash occurs and how much we
> should
> be willing to live with. That's the problem. People don't simply do
> the
> right thing and agree with me. If they did, life would be so much
> more
> smooth and easy to deal with (laugh).
>
> NFB does have some inconsistent positions when observed from different
> points of view. That's the nature of social change. Not all blacks
> agreed
> with bus boycots and not all college kids staged sit-ins in the 60's.
> Some
> people like the Black Panthers wanted to take things to a completely
> different level. That's just the way it is.
>
> My opposition to the accessible money issue has more to do with not
> wanting
> it to get to the Supreme Court than it does with the idea of
> accessible
> money. However, having said that, I don't see accessible money as a
> necessity, but rather, a thing that would be nice to have. And, just
> so the
> record is clear, NFB has taken various positions on the matter and may
> change it's position again. Again, that's the messy problem with a
> voting
> membership. New generations come along and see things differently.
>
> As to the need for an accessible web. I think that virtually all in
> the
> blind commmunity see this one as a need rather than a desire. If we
> can't
> access the modern web we're essentially left out of the main stream of
> society. I don't think any organized group disagrees with that
> concept.
> And, since the subject of backlash has come up, yes, there is a
> backlash
> against the blind because of our demands for an accessible web. It
> comes
> from small web sites that see accessibility as a needless expense they
> are
> "forced" to make. It also comes from State agencies that don't have
> people
> who can program accessibility features correctly and resent getting
> the
> training or contracting for the service from outside. Take a look at
> the
> number of government websites at all levels that are not accessible
> and
> you're seeing passive aggressive behaviour in many cases. They're
> saying,
> "This is crap and we won't do it."
>
> Well, anyway, all this is interesting and thanks for a great thread
> over the
> last couple of weeks. It has truly stimulated my thinking in many
> areas.
> Mike Bullis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk-bounces+mabullis=hotmail.com at nfbnet.org
> [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces+mabullis=hotmail.com at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> John
> G. Heim
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:40 PM
> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
>
> What is your point? My point was that the NFB has applied it's own
> philosophy inconsistently. In fact, the NFB's philosophy cannot be
> applied
> consistently without doing harm to blind people.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kathleen A. Millhoff" <kamillhoff at gdoe.net>
> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
>
>
> > Okay, why not
> > say that about accessible voting machines? Why not say that about
> Target's
> > web site? Accessible money is too expensive? Why not say that about
> > accessible voting machines? If you're concerned about a backlash if
> money
> > is
> > made accessible, why not worry about a backlash if web sites h
> > Ju pasting in your comments here in order to ask the rhetorical
> question:
> > if the road to hell is paved with good intentions,
> > isn't the road to chaos paved with generalizations?
> > kat
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nfb-talk-bounces+kamillhoff=gdoe.net at nfbnet.org
> > [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces+kamillhoff=gdoe.net at nfbnet.org]On Behalf Of
> > John Heim
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:18 AM
> > To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
> >
> >
> > Jim, in your zeal to defend the NFB, you responded to all kinds of
> things
> > I
> > never said. Stop treating me like an NFB basher. I am not a troll.
> I have
> > made my points carefully, thoughtfully, and patiently in spite of
> being
> > insulted time and time again. You would like to dismiss me as a
> troll
> > because you don't want to even consider that I might have a valid
> point
> > of
> > view.
> >
> > Back to the argument itself:
> >
> > Of what relevance is it that "I stand on the shoulders" of
> federationists?
> > No one with any sense would deny that the NFB has done a lot of good
> > things
> > and continues to do good things. You won't find a word in anything I
> said
> > that disputes that. But the NFB's policies are inconsistent and
> > contradictory. This is the result of them being based on
> philosophical
> > whims
> > instead of on facts. You say accessible money is no big deal. Okay,
> why
> > not
> > say that about accessible voting machines? Why not say that about
> Target's
> > web site? Accessible money is too expensive? Why not say that about
> > accessible voting machines? If you're concerned about a backlash if
> money
> > is
> > made accessible, why not worry about a backlash if web sites have to
> be
> > made
> > accessible?
> >
> > It's impossible to implement the NFB's philosophy on a consistent
> basis.
> > What's a big deal to you might not be a big deal to me. And as I
> said
> > since
> > my very first message in this particular debate, I wouldn't have a
> problem
> > if the NFB chose to give some issues a higher priority than others.
> If the
> > NFB's position on accessible money was that the ACB could go for
> > accessible
> > money but the NFB is not going to help, I'd be fine with it. But the
> fact
> > is
> > that the very same logic that the NFB has used to come out against
> > accessible money could be applied to everything the NFB does from
> > accessible
> > voting machines, to web sites, to braille books. Maybe we should
> come out
> > against funding for the National Library Service for the blind.
> After all,
> > that's tax payer money being used to remake the world to our liking,
> isn't
> > it? And please do not say it's a matter of degree because that
> > supports*my*
> > point of view. Yes, the only difference between the NLS and
> accessible
> > money
> > is a matter of degree. Which is exactly why the NFB positions on
> these
> > issues should be based on what is best for blind people rather than
> on
> > some
> > vague principle that it violates whenever it decides it's important
> > enough.
> >
> > Your argument is what is known as a false dichotomy. We don't have
> to
> > choose between accessible money and a positive attitude. We can have
> both
> > just as we can have accessible voting machines and a positive
> attitude.
> > Just as we can have the NLS and a positive attitude.
> >
> > And yeah, I have no doubt you and the NFB will continue to "do it
> your
> > way".
> > But that's nothing to be proud of. What the NFB is doing is wrong.
> It's
> > unethical and it's bad for blind people.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Marks" <blind.grizzly at gmail.com>
> > To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 11:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
> >
> >
> >> John, I am saying you're shooting at the wrong targets. You seem
> like a
> >> bright enough guy, so I presume you're aim is deliberate. No one
> said
> >> that
> >> accessible money or audible pedestrian signals are the cause of the
> >> prejudice. However, they can be and often are the symptoms of the
> >> prejudice. Spare us the analogies about wheelchair users and
> sighted
> >> people
> >> getting something we poor blind people do not get. Blind people
> know we
> >> have to look to ourselves in the things that count. The way I see
> it,
> >> accessible money doesn't really matter that much, and audible
> pedestrian
> >> signals can be harmful, especially if they are forced on us by
> knotheads
> >> who
> >> don't really believe in the abilities of the blind. You troll here
> >> telling
> >> the most powerful organization of the blind that we are somehow
> cramping
> >> your style. Well, you know what? We're going to do it our way.
> And our
> >> aim is more than just a matter of bravado and twisting of words.
> If you
> >> would simply examine your beliefs and compare them with the ones
> most
> >> Federationists hold, you might learn a thing or two. There was a
> time
> >> when
> >> I thought and acted like you are here on NFB-Talk. I woke up to
> the fact
> >> that there are no real curb cuts for the blind and that no one was
> >> looking
> >> out for the interests of the blind except for those who understand
> the
> >> personal responsibility and positive attitudes bit. You will not
> fix
> >> blindness with accessibility alone. Plus, the more you believe in
> the
> >> abilities of the blind, the less accessibility you will want.
> >>
> >> John, I have one last something to tell you. If you don't want to
> know,
> >> don't look down. If you were to look down, you would see that you
> are
> >> standing on the shoulders of Federationists. We're going to be
> there for
> >> you regardless of how you spit, fuss, and shake your tiny fists.
> Best to
> >> you. I really mean it.
> >>
> >>
> >> -------
> >> Jim Marks
> >> blind.grizzly at gmail.com
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nfb-talk-bounces+blind.grizzly=gmail.com at nfbnet.org
> >> [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces+blind.grizzly=gmail.com at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of
> >> John G. Heim
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 7:32 PM
> >> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> >> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> Holy cow! We don't *HAVE* accessible money. To suggest that this
> guy's
> >> attitude is the result of accessible money or audible walk signals
> is
> >> ridiculous.
> >>
> >> If someone already thinks blind people can't do anything, how in
> the
> >> world
> >> are you going to convince him otherwise if you can't even tell your
> own
> >> money apart?
> >>
> >> Man, this is ridiculous. I've never seen such a series of absurd
> >> rationalizations in my life.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nfb-talk mailing list
> >> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
> for
> >> nfb-talk:
> >>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfb-talk mailing list
> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
> for
> > nfb-talk:
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/kamillhoff%40gdoe.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfb-talk mailing list
> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
> for
> > nfb-talk:
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfb-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/mabullis%40hotmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfb-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/k7uij%40panix.com
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfb-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/mabullis%40hotmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfb-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/cannona%40fireantproductions.com
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32) - GPGrelay v0.959
Comment: Key available from all major key servers.
iEYEAREDAAYFAkgq4UYACgkQI7J99hVZuJc4DQCgyM0iN1worYFa5x3xhM6qGq4w
N/AAnR322DeWgUlvg2K6je+7efUnytYj
=SAoE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the nfb-talk
mailing list