If you are one of the readers who are openly critical of the NFB's
resolution, I'm wondering if you Have actually read Jonathan Mosen's
excellent and balanced response? If you have not, may I kindly suggest
that you do so. Some of you may not care if all apps are accessible and
are willing to use itunes to locate alternatives which are. While you
do that, please bear in mind that the reason for why your beloved iTunes
is so accessible is due to advocacy on the part of the NFB. Do you
seriously believe that all of these companies who have implemented so
much accessibility into their products and services did so out of the
goodness of their heart or because it was the right thing to do. I
truly wish that had been the case but it often is not. Honestly, this
is like criticizing a rule which gives you the right to criticize.
Feel free to visit my new Web site
http://www.DavidGoldfield.info
Feel free to visit my LinkedIn profile
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-goldfield/12/929/573
Visit my blog
http://davidgoldfield.wordpress.com
Follow me on Twitter
http://www.twitter.com/davidgoldfield
David Goldfield,
Founder and Peer Coordinator
Philadelphia Computer Users' Group for the Blind and Visually Impaired
On 7/12/2014 9:51 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
I cannot imagine it being about anything else but nfb getting money in
exchange for building in limitations.
Granted I make no secret of choosing my own dictionary.
But why on earth in the 21st century is anyone still worshiping at the
nfb altar anyway?
So they pass a resolution...and?
The only reason apple feels they must entertain them, is because other
customers do not indicate they have minds imaginations and interests
of their own.
a bunch of people gave this organization power, those same people, who
BTW have within themselves the ability to write their own
dictionaries about blindness and anything else, can tell the nfb they
have out grown the need for such a body anymore.
I simply do not understand why one conformity is exchanged for
another, one person's ideas of limitations exchanged for those the nfb
create with their mindset.
Kare
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
Karen:
I fully agree. It really does feel like we're slapping Apple in the
face, forcing them to conform. I really really hope this doesn't
work, because it's going to create a huge mess and totally redefine
apps. Not everything is accessible but that really is fine with me;
usually I can find an app that is. It's what happens when you use
anything, really. My thoughts are mainly money based: how much money
will NFB get for consulting for something like this, and secondly how
is this trash going to redefine apps on the iPhone? It's not going to
be all that hard for NFB to use their power to force things into
IOS/apps that don't need to be there, force things out, etc.
On 7/12/2014 9:25 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
Let me see if I understand this.
Apple who has built in innovation on its own must discuss with the
nfb how
to now limit that innovation to fit the nfb's one size fits all
definition
of blindness? as in all blind people are interchangeable, and the
nfb is
the only source to tell you how to find a plug and play blind
person by
which you measure what works for them...all 400 plus million of them?
I wonder how much money they plan on extorting for this dialog?
Not only should it be a blanket resolution, BTW android phones are the
most popular in use now according to annual surveys, but this dialog
should involve many organizations, and a group of apple customers
who are
not members of a consumer organization whatsoever.
The very suggestion that a single body is in a position to speak
for every
child born of women who happens to have the label blind attached to
them
is a stereotypes that really needs to end. otherwise the individuality
that is the rich experience of redefining blindness is not going
to exist
for the millions who need not buy the nfb line to live freely and
inclusively.
Why does the nfb not spend its energy training software developers
who fit
their one size fits all blindness box?
Many companies besides Apple would get the benefits that way.
just my take,
Karen
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014, Pamela Francis wrote:
> Hello,
> I personally am not in favor of this resolution; not because I
don't > want accessibility. Apple took the lead in making its
products > accessible without government or organizational
intervention. Microsoft, > on the other hand, allowed third-party
vendors to do its work within > accessibility. Google, though it has
come along way, still does not want > to adhere to its own
standards unless it is pressed.
> If there was a resolution to be had, it should've been a blanket
> resolution for all companies dealing with accessibility. Picking
on > Apple, is as if we as a blind community are slapping it in the
face > given that it has continued its efforts to remain
accessible. I > understand the need for utilitarian apps such as
maps, transit maps, > notes, lists, etc. to remain accessible as
they are a necessary function > in normal life. However, just to
use as an example I don't necessarily > need Angry Birds to be
accessible for my benefit nor do I need it to be > threatened to be
kicked from the app store due to inaccessibility for > the sake of
millions of people who enjoy it.
> As we continue to strive for accessibility in all areas, we need
not be > a bully to the company that went out of its way to make
its products > accessible from the beginning.
> We also do not need to be put into a societal box allowing
electronics > manufacturers, appliance manufacturers, and the
general public to > believe that all we are capable of is operating
an iPhone. We are on the > cusp of choice. We have fought for
choice for a long time. This type of > a resolution makes us look
militant and ungrateful. What is fair for > one company is fair
for all.
> Pam Francis
> > On Jul 12, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Terje Strømberg
<terjestrmb...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > The NFB Resolution is very important for all blind and low
vision all > over the world. We all want accessible digital future.
> > A link to a comment from the president in NFB: >
https://nfb.org/blog/vonb-blog/comments-apple-and-nfb-resolution-2014-12
> > Take care
> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google > Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send > an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to
macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d
> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google > Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send > an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to
macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >
--
Take care,
Ty
http://tds-solutions.net
He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool;
he that dares not reason is a slave.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
