How do you mean buy shares? Do you mean using money for something? If it's money then I don't think too many of our community would have the funds to do this. I live in the UK and I think I missed the original thread about this. On 8 Aug 2013, at 22:55, eric oyen <eric.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > > -- 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.
