well, there is one thing we can do to force the issue: everyone who is blind should buy up 10 shares of amazon stock and then assign it to a trusted proxy as a single voting block. If enough shares are allocated this way, the board of directors will have no choice but to listen. Its an idea I have suggested before, but it seems no one wants to do this, even when I know the method will work. This seems to be the one problem our community has: we can't seem to act in a unified fashion (I.E. the NFB v. the ACB, etc.). This needs to change or we will be stuck and marginalized.
-eric On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:26 AM, Chris Blouch wrote: > 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. > > -- 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.
