I'm always torn in the discussions of regulating accessibility. On the
one side the lack of regulation means slacker companies will continue
doing what they have been while companies who care will continue doing a
good job. Once a law requiring accessibility hits a particular product
the discussion usually turns to discerning the minimum that can be done
to pass the bad smell test for the regulations (and avoid the fines). In
other words, compliance does not equal accessibility. It's the age old
choice between enlist or comply. If you enlist in the ideals I'm trying
to persuade you about you're more likely to do a good job and not need
much else to motivate your work. If you are complying then you're just
trying to avoid getting hit by my stick and will do the minimum possible
to stay beyond its reach. The former is the hope but the latter is CVAA
and other regulations. It's unfortunate that companies have not figured
out that by not doing accessibility when they had a choice means
everybody is lessened when the choices are gone. Companies now have to
prove compliance and add a lot of cost to the process and consumers get
stuff that has the minimum accessibility slapped together to pass
whatever tests are being used. A rather sad state.
CB
On 8/8/13 10:08 AM, Mike Arrigo wrote:
There are other choices. The newest versions of android are just as
accessible, and these are made by several manufacturers.
Original message:
Hi all,
I really have to agree with Eric, here. In response to Barry, what
Apple did with the iPhone 3Gs was to make a main-stream device
accessible to us. And yes, that still has the potential to level the
playing field . But the playing field is hardly level if Apple is the
only company doing this, if for no other reason than what that means
is that blind consumers would only have one choice. I agree with
Bary. I love my Apple products and have absolutely no interest in
personally owning a Kindle. But I work with lots of students who do
have them. Kindle does a lot more in textbooks than other e-text
providers, which means that people will want to buy these devices for
school. Isn't it reasonable to strive to have the same level of
choice in our mobile technology as our sighted peers? Sandy is right,
there's a big gap between the ideal and the current reality, but
that's a big reason why I think it's worth doing everything we can to
stop Amazon from getting this waiver. Barry may be correct, and that
all our comments may be for naught. However, the only way we'll know
is to try.
Best,
Donna
On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:01 AM, eric oyen <eric.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
and what is wrong with that? the powers that be try every way to
keep us penned up, but I do not accept that. We have the right to be
able to live the same as others (at least here in the U.S.). So, why
should we accept anything less?
-eric
On Aug 7, 2013, at 2:16 PM, Barry Hadder wrote:
I recall a time not so long ago when i devices first became
accessible, everyone thinking how that was going to level the
playing field. It’s funny how quickly perspectives change.
Now the bar has been raised even higher. The playing field will not
be level until blind people have access to every cheep piece of
crap in existence.
I should say that I’m happy with what Apple does and I have no
desire to use anything else. That said however, I certainly think
that it would be a very good think if other companies would realize
the importance of opening their products up to other segments of
society and not excluding them. I just don’t think that this is
going to convince them.
I don’t want to completely let Apple off the hook as it seems to me
at times that there are factions under their roof that don’t seem
to understand the importance of accessibility or what Voiceover is
even used for. On the other hand, I think that there is a much
larger faction at Apple that definitely gets it and that the
evidence to support this is over whelming. I realize that not every
body can listen to them, but there were some very impressive
sessions at WWDC on the importance of accessibility and how easy it
really is to not only make an app usable to a blind person, but
make it a nice experience to use.
I would like to suggest, that just maybe, if a government agency
needs to step in to private inderestry and dictate to a company how
their product is required to function, the result probably won’t be
something you are going to want to use.
I think that we as a blind community have access to more
information then at any other time in history. And, while things
can always be better, maybe some gratitude is in order for the
really good things that some companies like Apple have done.
On Aug 7, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Richard Ring <richr...@gmail.com> wrote:
And, let's face it! Not all blind people can afford i devices, nor
should they have to! Having a relatively inexpensive Ereader would
really help to level the playing field!
You can have an off day, but you can't have a day off! ---The Art
of Fielding
Sent from my Mac Book Pro
richr...@gmail.com
On Aug 7, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Eugenia Firth <gigifi...@me.com> wrote:
Hi there
Yes, and we all know which "disability" they are talking about,
and it's not the disabled they are talking about either. They are
talking about the blind, but of course, they didn't say so. They
might as well have. After all, most of the other disabilities can
read the print. When I heard about this law, I had a feeling this
kind of thing was going to start with the "we can't" people.
Hey, I guess you guys noticed how they want to solve the
accessibility problem, right! They want to let Apple carrying
them along by saying we can all use iPads etc.!
Regards,
Gigi
Regards,
Gigi
On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Mike Arrigo <n0...@charter.net> wrote:
I can't believe the FCC would even consider that. They should
say, absolutely not. These devices must be made accessible, end
of story.
Original message:
Hello all:
In follow-up to Karen's post last night, I am posting
information regarding FCC's request for comments on this issue.
I hope that many of you will take the time to comment.
Best,
Donna
Request for Comment on Petition for Class Waiver of
Accessibility Rules for ACS
On August 1, 2013, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
released a Public Notice requesting comment on a petition filed
by the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers. The Coalition
requests that the Commission waive its rules requiring
equipment used for advanced communications services (ACS) to be
accessible by people with disabilities. The Coalition states
that, although e-readers are equipment that consumers can use
for ACS, they are designed primarily for reading.
To distinguish e-readers from tablets and other devices that
would not be subject to the waiver request, the Coalition
requests a waiver for e-readers that have the following features:
(1) they have no LCD screen;
(2) they have no camera;
(3) they are not offered or shipped to consumers with built-in
ACS client applications and their manufacturers do not develop
ACS applications for their respective devices, though the
devices may include a browser and social media applications; and
(4) they are marketed to consumers as reading devices and
promotional material does not tout the capability to access ACS.
Comment Deadline: September 3, 2013
Reply Comment Deadline: September 13, 2013
Links to the Public Notice (including filing instructions):
(PDF)
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.pdf
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.pdf>
(Word)
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc>
(Text)
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.txt
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.txt>
Link to the Coalition Petition (May 15, 2013):
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022314526
<http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022314526>
Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July
17, 2013): http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307
<http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307>
For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwald at
(202) 418-2235 oreliot.greenw...@fcc.gov
<mailto:eliot.greenw...@fcc.gov><mailto:eliot.greenw...@fcc.gov
<mailto:eliot.greenw...@fcc.gov>>; or Rosaline Crawford at
(202) 418-2075 orrosaline.crawf...@fcc.gov
<mailto:rosaline.crawf...@fcc.gov><mailto:rosaline.crawf...@fcc.gov
<mailto:rosaline.crawf...@fcc.gov>>.
--
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
<http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries>.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>.
--
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/groups/opt_out.
--
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/groups/opt_out.
--
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/groups/opt_out.
--
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/groups/opt_out.
--
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/groups/opt_out.
--
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/groups/opt_out.
--
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
--
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/groups/opt_out.
