The problem with having 2 different advocacy groups is that turf wars
are almost inevitable. Of course, there is also an issue with
efficiency, each group has to spend money and volunteer resources on
things like offices, employees, web sites, etc. But the main problem is
personality conflicts and turf wars. A good example is the NFB's
reaction to a lawsuit by the ACB to make money accessible. The ACB sued
the Treasury Department to make them make our currency accessible. The
NFB issued a resolution calling the lawsuit a "publicity stunt" and the
President of the NFB at the time, Mark Maurer, testified before congress
that blind people didn't need accessible money. Another example is when
the ACB helped get the Access Board to propose a regulation that would
have required cities to install accessible walk signals whenever they
installed a new traffic signal. The NFB organized protests to block the
regulation from going forward.
It may be unfortunate that the two best examples are both by the NFB.
I've been told that the ACB is just as bad but I don't have any direct
evidence of that. I am not trying to demonize the NFB but to make a
point about how these things work. Take a step back and think about the
basic facts here. After spending decades advoccating for accessible
money, an advocacy group for the blind found itself sending it's
President to Congress to testify against exactly that. An advocacy group
for the blind found itself organizing protests to block regulations that
would have greatly expanded the number of accessible walk signals. How
do you get to a point like that? By being unwilling to compromise and
letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
PS: This message is already longer than I'd like but I will admit I have
not provided as much detail as I'd like about the 2 NFB positions I
outlined. Having argued about this for years, I know that supporters of
the NFB might take issue with what I've said. But the truth is that my
points are basically true and accurate. For example, an NFB supporter
might say it is unfair to say Dr. Maurer testified against accessible
money. But it is fair. Any neutral observer, listening to Dr. Maurer's
testimony would conclude he was arguing against the Treasury department
bothering to make our money accessible at all. An NFB supporter might
argue that Dr. Maurer was right, we don't need accessible money. But the
NFB itself had been arguing for that for years.
On 04/25/2017 10:29 AM, Linux for blind general discussion wrote:
I know next to nothing about the NFB and ACB, and I could've sworn
there was an AFB in there somewhere, but unless one organization is
hoarding resources for their own members, refuse to let members be
part of other organizations, or abuse IP law to the point only those
willing to jump through their hoops can benefit, I'm not sure what the
problem is with multiple organizations opporating in the same arena
and pursueing differing goals. After all, the more choices one has,
the better the chances of finding something that works for their own
needs.
Sure, someone working to improve screen reading on the Linux Desktop
might be better off contributing to Orca than trying to produce their
own screen reader, and someone interested in improving screen reading
in Windows would probably be better off contributing to NVDA or even
applying for a job at Freedom Scientific than trying to create another
screen reader for Windows, but with how vastly different Windows and
Linux are as ecosystems, cooperation between the two sides might not
offer any tangible benefit not already provided by NVDA and Orca both
being open source. And even within the same ecosystem, speech and
braille are two completely different beasts, so not only could
cooperation between a speech developer and a braille developer not
benefit either side, trying to integrate their efforts into a single
program that does both braille and speech might just lead to something
that's harder to maintain than a pair of separate, single-purpose
programs.
Actually, I think that just might be a practical example of the wisdom
behind the Unix Philosophy of "Do one thing and do it well".
As for competing standards, when you only have a few competing
standards and one is clearly superior to the others(e.g. Blu-Ray vs HD
DVD), often the superior standard kills the inferior standard unless
the inferior standard has overwhelming backing of big business or the
government or is so much cheaper people over look it's inferiority.
However, when you have many standards in near perfect competition,
trying to introduce a new standard to replace them all often results
in just adding another standard to the list. Consider the various
document, image, audio, and video formats in common usage for storing
stuff digitally and how they tend to be an eclectic mix of formats
that have been around for decades and formats that popped up in the
last few years, and how the older formats aren't limited just to files
that have been circulating for years. Honestly, it's a small miracle
HDMI became the one standard to rule them all instead of ending up
with as many HD video connectors as there are different SD Video
connectors, and I'd say the same of USB if it wasn't a single
all-purpose standard replacing a multitude of single purpose
standards.
_______________________________________________
Blinux-list mailing list
Blinux-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
