Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[eric oyen]

Yuma,

It isn't just the blind who would be affected by this. It's anyone with a print 
disability (dyslexia, etc.). THe number of blind (legally and totally) here in 
the U.S. is somewhere just north of 22 million or so. Thats just a hair under 
10% of the entire U.S. population. Add in those who suffer other issues that 
make reading print very difficult (or impossible) and the number explodes. As 
for the world population figures, there is still some debate and no real way to 
accurately measure this population (too many governments that don't want to 
admit that they have blind people living in their countries, etc.). Still, 45 
million or so is just a very rough estimate and probably a low one at that. 
Take as an example China. THey have 1/5th of the worlds population but they 
rarely admit to having any blind people inside their borders (except for those 
who do exceptionally well). India is another case in point where the blind are 
not displayed openly. A big part of this problem is cultural inertia. Often in 
such cultures (and even here in the U.S.) the blind are viewed as damaged 
goods. Amazon.com shows this example by their filing.

Ads for purchasing stock, it can be done for relatively cheap. The problem is 
getting everyone united in a single position and all voting the same way. I 
don't know what funding sources are out there that would allow us to accomplish 
this. Still, I view it as a single grain of sand starting an avalanche (all it 
takes is a few to start the slide).

-eric

On Aug 10, 2013, at 8:43 PM, Yuma Antoine Decaux wrote:

> Hi Eric,
> 
> This is a sound idea as it places weight on the board. Have you made some 
> general calculations on the number of blind/visually impaired individuals 
> potentially capable of buying 10 amazon shares at 260 USD current?Far as i 
> know, there are 45 million blind and visually impaired individuals around the 
> world. Most of them in developing countries. Breaking it down to say, 
> Australia, there are about 50 so far, of them i would be interested to 
> know who fulfills the criterias of age and financial capability. Or, some of 
> the organizations themselves, from the donations they get, could actually buy 
> shares of various entities to get their message across.
> 
> There are complications and obstacles, but this is a very cool idea.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Yuma 
> 
> 
> 
> "Light has no value without darkness"
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Sean Murphy  wrote:
> 
>> Eric,
>> 
>> I like your concept and is something that I have promoted with other people. 
>> Not necessarily in the same method.
>> 
>> Government laws and education only goes so far. Money speaks far louder for 
>> public companies. 
>> 
>> So Eric, drop me a note off line so we can compare notes.
>> 
>> Sean 
>> On 09/08/2013, at 7:55 AM, eric oyen  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

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Yuma Antoine Decaux]

Hi Eric,

This is a sound idea as it places weight on the board. Have you made some 
general calculations on the number of blind/visually impaired individuals 
potentially capable of buying 10 amazon shares at 260 USD current?Far as i 
know, there are 45 million blind and visually impaired individuals around the 
world. Most of them in developing countries. Breaking it down to say, 
Australia, there are about 50 so far, of them i would be interested to know 
who fulfills the criterias of age and financial capability. Or, some of the 
organizations themselves, from the donations they get, could actually buy 
shares of various entities to get their message across.

There are complications and obstacles, but this is a very cool idea.

Best regards,

Yuma 
 


"Light has no value without darkness"



On 11/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Sean Murphy  wrote:

> Eric,
> 
> I like your concept and is something that I have promoted with other people. 
> Not necessarily in the same method.
> 
> Government laws and education only goes so far. Money speaks far louder for 
> public companies. 
> 
> So Eric, drop me a note off line so we can compare notes.
> 
> Sean 
> On 09/08/2013, at 7:55 AM, eric oyen  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  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 shoul

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Sean Murphy]

Eric,

I like your concept and is something that I have promoted with other people. 
Not necessarily in the same method.

Government laws and education only goes so far. Money speaks far louder for 
public companies. 

So Eric, drop me a note off line so we can compare notes.

Sean 
On 09/08/2013, at 7:55 AM, eric oyen  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  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 s

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Nicholas Parsons]

Yes, but it sounds like at least one important motivation for Amazon to support 
VoiceOver on its iOS app was so it would have a better chance of not needing to 
make its eReaders accessible in the future. So, if the FCC rejects its request, 
would it no longer be motivated to make its iOS app accessible?

-- 
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.

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Teresa Cochran]

The waiver only applies to future productions of the ereaders.

Teresa
On Aug 9, 2013, at 3:21 AM, Nicholas Parsons  
wrote:

> I just hope that if Amazong doesn't get this waiver, it doesn't stop 
> supporting VoiceOver on its iOS app.
> 
> -- 
> 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.

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Kawal Gucukoglu]

You can also point out that I phones and other appe devices are expensive and 
not all blind persons can afford such technology so it would be in their best 
interests to make their stuff more accessible.

On 9 Aug 2013, at 11:11 AM, Nicholas Parsons  
wrote:

> HI,
> 
> This is really interesting. I just have a couple of points to make.
> 
> 1. I hope this doesn't mean that if Amazon is unsuccessful in getting the 
> exemption it will stop supporting VoiceOver on its iOS app.
> 
> 2. I really respect the fact that you're making your voice heard to the FCC. 
> However, I would respectfully suggest that you consider changing the angle of 
> your submission a little. Instead of focusing on publicly available 
> information, instead focus on what the FCC can only get from you.
> 2.1. The thrust of Amazong and friends' argument is that blind people don't 
> use e-readers anyway, so why make them accessible? You should explain to the 
> FCC that in fact you and many blind people love using e-readers and receive 
> an enormous benefit from using e-readers. Explain the benefit of electronic 
> books to blind people.
> 2.2. Explain how these e-readers would give blind people equal access to many 
> more books than they would otherwise be able to access.
> 2.3. Explain how blind people would benefit from the same aspects of an 
> e-reader that sighted people benefit from, namely that they are more simple 
> than ordinary tablet computers as they focus solely on reading, they have 
> better battery life, are lighter, and are less expensive.
> 2.4. Amazong also tries to argue that e-readers do not run apps like other 
> tablet computers. Explain that this does not matter for blind people, that 
> blind users do not want e-readers to use other apps, but simply to read 
> electronic books in an accessible manner, through the use of text-to-speech 
> technology or external third party braille displays.
> 2.5. Saying that Apple makes its products accessible and keeps its costs the 
> same as its competitors is unhelpful, and may actually be misleading. Apple's 
> prices are generally more expensive than it's competitors. We don't know how 
> easily or otherwise Apple makes its products accessible, or how expensive 
> this is. All we know is that they do it well. But Amazon's argument is that 
> Apple's products are more advanced machines with better processors and so 
> they can support accessibility, whereas its e-readers are designed to use 
> more basic components to keep costs down and increase battery life. In any 
> case, this issue is really one for experts to advise the FCC on. The blind 
> community is better off giving assistance to the FCC by explaining how and 
> why we use e-readers.
> 
> Those are just my suggestions. I hope they are of some help. I'd be keen to 
> discuss the issue further as I think it's a really interesting one and you're 
> doing a great thing by making the voice of the blind community heard. Thanks 
> for your work!
> 
> Best,
> Nic
> 
> -- 
> 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.

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Nicholas Parsons]

I just hope that if Amazong doesn't get this waiver, it doesn't stop supporting 
VoiceOver on its iOS app.

-- 
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.

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Nicholas Parsons]

HI,

This is really interesting. I just have a couple of points to make.

1. I hope this doesn't mean that if Amazon is unsuccessful in getting the 
exemption it will stop supporting VoiceOver on its iOS app.

2. I really respect the fact that you're making your voice heard to the FCC. 
However, I would respectfully suggest that you consider changing the angle of 
your submission a little. Instead of focusing on publicly available 
information, instead focus on what the FCC can only get from you.
2.1. The thrust of Amazong and friends' argument is that blind people don't use 
e-readers anyway, so why make them accessible? You should explain to the FCC 
that in fact you and many blind people love using e-readers and receive an 
enormous benefit from using e-readers. Explain the benefit of electronic books 
to blind people.
2.2. Explain how these e-readers would give blind people equal access to many 
more books than they would otherwise be able to access.
2.3. Explain how blind people would benefit from the same aspects of an 
e-reader that sighted people benefit from, namely that they are more simple 
than ordinary tablet computers as they focus solely on reading, they have 
better battery life, are lighter, and are less expensive.
2.4. Amazong also tries to argue that e-readers do not run apps like other 
tablet computers. Explain that this does not matter for blind people, that 
blind users do not want e-readers to use other apps, but simply to read 
electronic books in an accessible manner, through the use of text-to-speech 
technology or external third party braille displays.
2.5. Saying that Apple makes its products accessible and keeps its costs the 
same as its competitors is unhelpful, and may actually be misleading. Apple's 
prices are generally more expensive than it's competitors. We don't know how 
easily or otherwise Apple makes its products accessible, or how expensive this 
is. All we know is that they do it well. But Amazon's argument is that Apple's 
products are more advanced machines with better processors and so they can 
support accessibility, whereas its e-readers are designed to use more basic 
components to keep costs down and increase battery life. In any case, this 
issue is really one for experts to advise the FCC on. The blind community is 
better off giving assistance to the FCC by explaining how and why we use 
e-readers.

Those are just my suggestions. I hope they are of some help. I'd be keen to 
discuss the issue further as I think it's a really interesting one and you're 
doing a great thing by making the voice of the blind community heard. Thanks 
for your work!

Best,
Nic

-- 
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.

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Sandi Jazmin Kruse]

Hi Eric.
It is a gorgeous idea, with one major drawback, how many of us do you
think got that kind of money.
I definitely know that I don't.
There's got too be something else that might work.

sandi


On 8/8/13, Donna Goodin  wrote:
> I agree.
> Cheers,
> Donna
> On Aug 8, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Mike Arrigo  wrote:
>
>> Oh, I'm not saying amazon should be off the hook. Not at all. I think they
>> should be required to make their device accessible just like everyone
>> else. Really though, it's a shame that it may take a requirement from the
>> government to make this happen. Usually when it's required, the company
>> only does the minimum required to satisfy the requirement. They should
>> make it accessible because it's the right thing to do and increases their
>> consumer base. When a company does something because they want to, rather
>> than because they have to, usually the result is much better.
>> Original message:
>>> Right. But why does that let Amazon off the hook?
>>> Donna
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:08 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  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 
>>> wrote:
>>
 

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Donna Goodin]

I agree.
Cheers,
Donna
On Aug 8, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Mike Arrigo  wrote:

> Oh, I'm not saying amazon should be off the hook. Not at all. I think they 
> should be required to make their device accessible just like everyone else. 
> Really though, it's a shame that it may take a requirement from the 
> government to make this happen. Usually when it's required, the company only 
> does the minimum required to satisfy the requirement. They should make it 
> accessible because it's the right thing to do and increases their consumer 
> base. When a company does something because they want to, rather than because 
> they have to, usually the result is much better.
> Original message:
>> Right. But why does that let Amazon off the hook?
>> Donna
>> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:08 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  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  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 
>>> Field

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Kawal Gucukoglu]

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  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  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 

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[eric oyen]

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  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 ve

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[eric oyen]

its not wrong. In fact, if you need to modify it for your needs, do so.
You are correct that this is a lot more than just a U.S. problem, but what 
happens here spreads fairly quickly to the rest of the developed world.

-eric

On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:42 AM, Red.Falcon wrote:

> Hi Eric!
> OK I hope this does not come across wrong!
> Although this is taking place under USA laws maybe the point could be made 
> that this disision will effect people in other country's, so a bigger 
> community!
> IE like the iPhone as been mentioned before!
> Just a thought!
> Colin
> 
> On 8 Aug 2013, at 11:01, eric oyen  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 realise 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 realise 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  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  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  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 

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Mike Arrigo]

Oh, I'm not saying amazon should be off the hook. Not at all. I think 
they should be required to make their device accessible just like 
everyone else. Really though, it's a shame that it may take a 
requirement from the government to make this happen. Usually when it's 
required, the company only does the minimum required to satisfy the 
requirement. They should make it accessible because it's the right 
thing to do and increases their consumer base. When a company does 
something because they want to, rather than because they have to, 
usually the result is much better.

Original message:

Right. But why does that let Amazon off the hook?
Donna
Sent from my iPhone



On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:08 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  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  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  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" p

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Donna Goodin]

Right. But why does that let Amazon off the hook?
Donna
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:08 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  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  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  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
> 
>>>

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Chris Blouch]

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  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  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!



Y

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Mike Arrigo]

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  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  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  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  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 Fe

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Red.Falcon]

Hi Eric!
OK I hope this does not come across wrong!
Although this is taking place under USA laws maybe the point could be made that 
this disision will effect people in other country's, so a bigger community!
IE like the iPhone as been mentioned before!
Just a thought!
Colin

On 8 Aug 2013, at 11:01, eric oyen  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 realise 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 realise 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  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  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  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-r

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Sandi Jazmin Kruse]

actually i do believe a good way of laying pressure on them, would be
keeping educating them about our needs. But then again on the other
hand till that is done we got to find other ways of getting where we
want.
For me personally it means reading a ungodly lots of medical books so
i can end up nursing. It takes me lots of time scanning the books in,
after that prove reading them the list goes on and on and on, would it
be nicer if we had all our books as ebooks? that goes with out saying.
But will it ever happen? i doubt it, the main reason is this. there
are lots of books out there and having them all digitalized is simply
not realistic.
I at least know that some of the books i read for cutiesleeps, could
not be found in any digitalized version till i had scanned it in,"das
boot"
Same goes for some air plane books. However in denmark at least, there
are ways round that you can go down, borrow a book at your local
library, scan it in and deliver it back, i don't know how it work in
other countries, but am sure that there are similar solutions? :)
As Donna says apple have made the iPhone accessible, could it be done
for windows as well? both yes and no, it is a matter  about how the
operating system boots up.
And on a last note, of course we should never under any circumstance
accept less than what a sighted person can get if it is at all doable
to make it work for us, but i think it is hard for some sighted
persons too understand how easy it would be to make their products
work for us.


/sandi


On 8/8/13, Donna Goodin  wrote:
> 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  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 do

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Kawal Gucukoglu]

The plainfield will never be level until every product can talk out of the box 
this includes, Windows as well. We should not have to have a third party screen 
reader such as jaws or NDVA as that is just propping up Microsoft products. How 
do you think we should put pressure on big companies like Microsoft and Amazon, 
in fact anyone who is providing E-books, should we have to have a separate 
device which is tailored to the blind?  Perhaps another petition is in order 
which affect all the major companies who provide accessibility which is not 
accessible out of the box.

Kawal.

On 8 Aug 2013, at 11:25 AM, Sandi Jazmin Kruse  wrote:

> Eric, i do agree with you up to a point at least. However one thing is
> laws and rules  another thing is real life.
> They could obviously quite easily modify the e-readers so we could use
> them, in fact it would be dead simple to do so. What is interesting is
> why it is not being done. I guess in the mean time we may just  have
> to do what we always have done, find some other ways of accepting our
> information.
> 
> 
> On 8/8/13, eric oyen  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  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  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  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.
>>>

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Donna Goodin]

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  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  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  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  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 wi

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Sandi Jazmin Kruse]

Eric, i do agree with you up to a point at least. However one thing is
laws and rules  another thing is real life.
They could obviously quite easily modify the e-readers so we could use
them, in fact it would be dead simple to do so. What is interesting is
why it is not being done. I guess in the mean time we may just  have
to do what we always have done, find some other ways of accepting our
information.


On 8/8/13, eric oyen  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  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  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  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 re

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[eric oyen]

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  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  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  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 readi

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Sandi Jazmin Kruse]

hi.
I do agree with others, Apple have gone a long way up the tree too
give us something we can actually use with out much problems. And it
would indeed be nice if more companies did the same thing. But lets
face it with the handicap we got, sometimes we gotta make a few more
go arounds before we are in for a safe landing. :)
I don't particularly like the fact in order too end my education i
have to know a ton more about computers than other females, but well,
on the other hand i know that no one else is coming too the rescue so
i might as well just learn it my self, i believe it have been like
that since i started with linux. This situation is the same we had
when they first came out with the lit ebook format.



regards sandi


On 8/7/13, eric oyen  wrote:
> below is a proposed comment I will make to the FCC. I would like you all to
> review it and see if I need to make any changes before submitting it to the
> agency.
>
> -eric
>
> ---
>
> In the matter of Amazon (and others) who seek exemption from both the 1934
> communications act and the recently enacted Accessibility in
> telecommunications act, I am one of the people who will be most affected by
> this.
>
> Though Amazon (and others) claim to seek this exemption for every
> disability, it is evidently clear that most disabilities don't need
> accessibility in such devices. For instance, the deaf can read well without
> the use of sound, the mobility impaired can (with only a few exceptions)
> manipulate the controls just the same as most others. However, the blind
> cannot manipulate any of the controls on such devices without either a
> tactile or audible feedback.  The claims that Amazon (and others) are making
> are specious on their face. As proof, I offer the example of Apple and their
> various devices and software. They have made every attempt to be as
> accessible as possible to every class of disability as is possible. As a
> result, their equipment and software are used by a majority of the blind and
> done so easily. The cost of their equipment is comparable to that marketed
> by other entities that don't offer such features. Apple is proof that
> designing in accessibility from the start costs very little and gains them
> much in market share (as well as being profitable).
>
> There is only 1 reason why Amazon (and others) would choose this route:
>   they intend to create niche market items that are so specialized as to 
> be
> useful only to one class. Like other vendors of such products, they would
> increase the price well beyond the reach of most of the blind to be able to
> afford. As an example: The manufacture of the Braille Sense U2 costs less
> than $200 per unit to manufacture and yet the retail price exceeds $6,000
> per unit here in the US. This is largely owing to the fact that such vendors
> use an income stream model where the devices are funded by the government.
> Under this model, Amazon (and others) would be able to charge far higher
> prices and sell them to the various Vocational Rehab Agencies. This would
> put the blind back into having to justify acquiring such equipment (and most
> times being denied). This cannot be allowed.
>
> There is also one other point:
>   Amazon recently suffered the consequences of litigation as a result of
> trying to market their inaccessible devices to students and to make such
> equipment a necessary part of that course completion. This violated the
> Americans with Disabilities act. Both Amazon and the institution involved
> were found in violation and required to make recompense under the law. For
> this reason, they should not be allowed the exemption.
>
> On the face of it, Amazon (and others) seek the exemption so as to
> circumvent the law of the land. They also claim that including such
> accessibility features would be an onerous cost (which it will not given
> Apple Corp's example). Their short sightedness in asking for this exemption
> would, in the long run, be far more costly.
>
> Thus, I request that you deny the application for exemption. I request this,
> not only for myself, but also as a member of 3 major organizations for the
> blind here in the US (the National Federation of the Blind, The American
> Council of the Blind and Lion's Club International). The current estimated
> population in the US that suffers Print Disabilities (such as visual
> impairment, dyslexia and some other related issues) exceeds more than 50
> million individuals in all population age groups. This, gentlemen, is a
> non-trivial percentage of the population of the U.S. We cannot allow Amazon
> (and others) to deny us the basic right to read with whatever method we can
> use (be it Braille, Audio or other means not listed here).
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> --
> 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+unsubs

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[eric oyen]

below is a proposed comment I will make to the FCC. I would like you all to 
review it and see if I need to make any changes before submitting it to the 
agency.

-eric

---

In the matter of Amazon (and others) who seek exemption from both the 1934 
communications act and the recently enacted Accessibility in telecommunications 
act, I am one of the people who will be most affected by this.

Though Amazon (and others) claim to seek this exemption for every disability, 
it is evidently clear that most disabilities don't need accessibility in such 
devices. For instance, the deaf can read well without the use of sound, the 
mobility impaired can (with only a few exceptions) manipulate the controls just 
the same as most others. However, the blind cannot manipulate any of the 
controls on such devices without either a tactile or audible feedback.  The 
claims that Amazon (and others) are making are specious on their face. As 
proof, I offer the example of Apple and their various devices and software. 
They have made every attempt to be as accessible as possible to every class of 
disability as is possible. As a result, their equipment and software are used 
by a majority of the blind and done so easily. The cost of their equipment is 
comparable to that marketed by other entities that don't offer such features. 
Apple is proof that designing in accessibility from the start costs very little 
and gains them much in market share (as well as being profitable). 

There is only 1 reason why Amazon (and others) would choose this route:
they intend to create niche market items that are so specialized as to 
be useful only to one class. Like other vendors of such products, they would 
increase the price well beyond the reach of most of the blind to be able to 
afford. As an example: The manufacture of the Braille Sense U2 costs less than 
$200 per unit to manufacture and yet the retail price exceeds $6,000 per unit 
here in the US. This is largely owing to the fact that such vendors use an 
income stream model where the devices are funded by the government. Under this 
model, Amazon (and others) would be able to charge far higher prices and sell 
them to the various Vocational Rehab Agencies. This would put the blind back 
into having to justify acquiring such equipment (and most times being denied). 
This cannot be allowed. 

There is also one other point:
Amazon recently suffered the consequences of litigation as a result of 
trying to market their inaccessible devices to students and to make such 
equipment a necessary part of that course completion. This violated the 
Americans with Disabilities act. Both Amazon and the institution involved were 
found in violation and required to make recompense under the law. For this 
reason, they should not be allowed the exemption.

On the face of it, Amazon (and others) seek the exemption so as to circumvent 
the law of the land. They also claim that including such accessibility features 
would be an onerous cost (which it will not given Apple Corp's example). Their 
short sightedness in asking for this exemption would, in the long run, be far 
more costly.

Thus, I request that you deny the application for exemption. I request this, 
not only for myself, but also as a member of 3 major organizations for the 
blind here in the US (the National Federation of the Blind, The American 
Council of the Blind and Lion's Club International). The current estimated 
population in the US that suffers Print Disabilities (such as visual 
impairment, dyslexia and some other related issues) exceeds more than 50 
million individuals in all population age groups. This, gentlemen, is a 
non-trivial percentage of the population of the U.S. We cannot allow Amazon 
(and others) to deny us the basic right to read with whatever method we can use 
(be it Braille, Audio or other means not listed here). 

Thank you for your consideration.

-- 
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.

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[eric oyen]

below is a comment I props to send to the fcc on their comments page. let me 
know if I need to make changes. Once this is done, spread it as far and wide as 
possible. the more comments the FCC gets against this exemption, the better it 
will be for us.

-eric

---
In the matter of Amazon (and others) who seek exemption from both the 1934 
communications act and the recently enacted Accessibility in telecommunications 
act, I am one of the people who will be most affected by this.

Though Amazon (and others) claim to seek this exemption for every disability, 
it is evidently clear that most disabilities don't need accessibility in such 
devices. For instance, the deaf can read well without the use of sound, the 
mobility impaired can (with only a few exceptions) manipulate the controls just 
the same as most others. However, the blind cannot manipulate any of the 
controls on such devices without either a tactile or audible feedback.  The 
claims that Amazon (and others) are making are specious on their face. As 
proof, I offer the example of Apple and their various devices and software. 
They have made every attempt to be as accessible as possible to every class of 
disability as is possible. As a result, their equipment and software are used 
by a majority of the blind and done so easily. The cost of their equipment is 
comparable to that marketed by other entities that don't offer such features. 
Apple is proof that designing in accessibility from the start costs very little 
and gains them much in market share (as well as being profitable). 

There is only 1 reason why Amazon (and others) would choose this route:
they intend to create niche market items that are so specialized as to 
be useful only to one class. Like other vendors of such products, they would 
increase the price well beyond the reach of most of the blind to be able to 
afford. As an example: The manufacture of the Braille Sense U2 costs less than 
$200 per unit to manufacture and yet the retail price exceeds $6,000 per unit 
here in the US. This is largely owing to the fact that such vendors use an 
income stream model where the devices are funded by the government. Under this 
model, Amazon (and others) would be able to charge far higher prices and sell 
them to the various Vocational Rehab Agencies. This would put the blind back 
into having to justify acquiring such equipment (and most times being denied). 
This cannot be allowed. 

There is also one other point:
Amazon recently suffered the consequences of litigation as a result of 
trying to market their inaccessible devices to students and to make such 
equipment a necessary part of that course completion. This violated the 
Americans with Disabilities act. Both Amazon and the institution involved were 
found in violation and required to make recompense under the law. For this 
reason, they should not be allowed the exemption.

On the face of it, Amazon (and others) seek the exemption so as to circumvent 
the law of the land. They also claim that including such accessibility features 
would be an onerous cost (which it will not given Apple Corp's example). Their 
short sightedness in asking for this exemption would, in the long run, be far 
more costly.

Thus, I request that you deny the application for exemption. I request this, 
not only for myself, but also as a member of 3 major organizations for the 
blind here in the US (the National Federation of the Blind, The American 
Council of the Blind and Lion's Club International). The current estimated 
population in the US that suffers Print Disabilities (such as visual 
impairment, dyslexia and some other related issues) exceeds more than 50 
million individuals in all population age groups. This, gentlemen, is a 
non-trivial percentage of the population of the U.S. We cannot allow Amazon 
(and others) to deny us the basic right to read with whatever method we can use 
(be it Braille, Audio or other means not listed here). 

Thank you for your consideration.

-- 
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.

FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Adrienne Sinclair Chalmers]

At last the mystery of why Amazon caved in on VO is solved. Is it OK for non-US 
residents to comment to the FCC,
? It will naturally affect us all across the world?

Best

Adrienne

-- 
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.

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Cara Quinn]

Hello,

Actually, while I certainly agree that everyone posting here should post their 
comments to the FCC in my opinion, I'll also add that this, in no way makes 
this topic unwelcome here!

In fact, I am glad we're discussing this.

-And I'd personally like to see this one continue for as long as people feel 
this needs to or is desirable to. As long as we're being adults and expressing 
interesting and articulate views, then I see no reason to end this topic.

thanks All, for a great thread. Let's hope that this thread only goes away when 
the accessibility we deserve makes this a moot point. :)

Hugs,

Cara :)
On Aug 7, 2013, at 2:22 PM, Sean Paul  wrote:

&, if the comments are felt so strongly about the accessibility or lack there 
of. Wouldn't it be much better to comment to the FCC & not continue a thread 
which has gone on for ever?
- Original Message -
From: Barry Hadder
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 17:16
Subject: Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility 
requirements

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  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  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  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)

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Sean Paul]

&, if the comments are felt so strongly about the accessibility or lack there 
of. Wouldn't it be much better to comment to the FCC & not continue a thread 
which has gone on for ever?
  - Original Message - 
  From: Barry Hadder 
  To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 17:16
  Subject: Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility 
requirements


  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  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  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  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 applicat

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Barry Hadder]

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  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  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  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 
 
 (Word) h

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Timothy Emmons]

Really? A friend ofmine and a patron, were discussing this earlier. Their 
excuse is, that it will make the device weigh more. how does addedda 
ccessibility in software make it heavier? I know it might effect the batery but 
not by that much. You can't rely on Apple to carry you folks, that's not how 
this thing works. i know this is why they focus so much now on the app and have 
left the devices out in hopes that Apple will carry them. I get the complaint 
that it will cost money, but so what. I as a blind onsumer want or would love a 
Kindle paperwhite, or a Kindle fire one day because it's just a little more 
affordable for my budget than say another iPad, but you're telling me you don't 
want my money and you're not going to make a device that I can use and you're 
going to not give me accessibility so I can help increase your market? oor 
thinking on their part. I heard about this this morning and can't believe it 
but then I can. Amazon is always good about making excuses and finding 
loopholes to get out of accessibility. In the same vain though, I have to say 
this much. Apple set a standard that we all expect now because it just works 
and is the right thing to do. Amazon has b een doing this thing a little 
longer, and they've got this cloud thing down, but they have always refused to 
make it accessible or sticking a bandaid over it and making it better. Don't 
get me wrong, I love the app, use it daily, on both my phone and iPad, but if 
one of those breaks I might want to go grab a Kindle from wherever and have it 
already set up to get my books and media content just like my sighted peer over 
there, or my wife. And, you're telling me no? I shouldn't have to find a 
workaround to get your prodcuts to work they should say, it should be made 
accessible. No questions asked, either get it done or close it up but we all 
know that doesn't work that way. Ok, I'm coming off my soap box and getting 
some braille books ready to send patrons this afternoon, my public is calling 
for the real stuff, but that's my take. They need to rethink this whoel thing 
and stop making sniveling excuses as to why, and just make it work. If we, as a 
public made excuses as to why we can't do our job, you know what would happen? 
Yeah. Gone. Outta here, close it up. Same principle should hold here, it should 
be mandatory for things of that nature, all access, all inclusive. Done. Ok, I 
stop now, take care guys. sorry for the rambble and getting off on a tangient 
but when Amazon and these other Ereaders go and do something like this and I'm 
excluded I'm a bit aggravated. Take care. 
On Aug 7, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Chris Blouch wrote:

> That's sort of like telling Mac users that to get an accessible experience 
> with the XYZ app to just use Windows. Oh, Microsoft already does that with 
> Office. Guess they don't have to worry since that app isn't FCC regulated.
> 
> CB
> 
> On 8/7/13 1:21 PM, Eugenia Firth 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  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 bu

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Teresa Cochran]

I just found this interesting discussion:
http://tinyurl.com/TheDigitalReader


quote:
While there is a petition for a waiver from accessibility rules, the waiver 
would only cover an exemption from a single regulation, not all accessibility 
regulations. I’ll explain the regulation in question, but first let me give you 
an idea just how narrowly focused this waiver really is.

End quote

The writer comes out against the petition, speaking in favor of complying with 
the regulation rather than seeking a waiver.

Teresa

On Aug 7, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Teresa Cochran  wrote:

> I don't think Sony and Amazon have a special vendetta against the blind, 
> dyslexic, and folks with print disabilities. I think it's a political move to 
> push the e-readers into schools and government agencies, and we get the 
> splash-back. Not that this makes the situation any better. In fact, it's 
> dangerous, because we get trampled in the shuffle. Sure, we can read with the 
> kindle app on iThingies, but where's the harm in providing the widest market 
> with the most potential consumers? And since when is using text-to-speech not 
> "reading"?
> 
> Teresa
> On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Chris Blouch  wrote:
> 
>> That's sort of like telling Mac users that to get an accessible experience 
>> with the XYZ app to just use Windows. Oh, Microsoft already does that with 
>> Office. Guess they don't have to worry since that app isn't FCC regulated.
>> 
>> CB
>> 
>> On 8/7/13 1:21 PM, Eugenia Firth 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  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 
> 
> (Word) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc 
> 
> (Text) 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 
> 
> Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July 17, 2013): 
> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307 
> 
> For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwa

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Teresa Cochran]

I don't think Sony and Amazon have a special vendetta against the blind, 
dyslexic, and folks with print disabilities. I think it's a political move to 
push the e-readers into schools and government agencies, and we get the 
splash-back. Not that this makes the situation any better. In fact, it's 
dangerous, because we get trampled in the shuffle. Sure, we can read with the 
kindle app on iThingies, but where's the harm in providing the widest market 
with the most potential consumers? And since when is using text-to-speech not 
"reading"?

Teresa
On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Chris Blouch  wrote:

> That's sort of like telling Mac users that to get an accessible experience 
> with the XYZ app to just use Windows. Oh, Microsoft already does that with 
> Office. Guess they don't have to worry since that app isn't FCC regulated.
> 
> CB
> 
> On 8/7/13 1:21 PM, Eugenia Firth 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  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 
 
 (Word) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc 
 
 (Text) 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 
 
 Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July 17, 2013): 
 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307 
 
 For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwald at (202) 418-2235 
 oreliot.greenw...@fcc.gov 
 >; or Rosaline Crawford at (202) 418-2075 
 orrosaline.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@googlegro

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Alex Hall]

Can anyone provide the exact link to provide comments? I looked on the ECFS of 
the FCC site, but could not find the filing in question.
On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Chris Blouch  wrote:

> That's sort of like telling Mac users that to get an accessible experience 
> with the XYZ app to just use Windows. Oh, Microsoft already does that with 
> Office. Guess they don't have to worry since that app isn't FCC regulated.
> 
> CB
> 
> On 8/7/13 1:21 PM, Eugenia Firth 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  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 
 
 (Word) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc 
 
 (Text) 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 
 
 Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July 17, 2013): 
 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307 
 
 For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwald at (202) 418-2235 
 oreliot.greenw...@fcc.gov 
 >; or Rosaline Crawford at (202) 418-2075 
 orrosaline.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 
 .
 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 recei

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Chris Blouch]

That's sort of like telling Mac users that to get an accessible 
experience with the XYZ app to just use Windows. Oh, Microsoft already 
does that with Office. Guess they don't have to worry since that app 
isn't FCC regulated.


CB

On 8/7/13 1:21 PM, Eugenia Firth 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  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 

(Word) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc 

(Text) 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 

Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July 17, 2013): 
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307 

For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwald at (202) 418-2235 oreliot.greenw...@fcc.gov 
>; or Rosaline Crawford at (202) 418-2075 orrosaline.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 
.
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 macv

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Richard Ring]

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  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  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 
>>> 
>>> (Word) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc 
>>> 
>>> (Text) 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 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July 17, 2013): 
>>> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307 
>>> 
>> 
>>> For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwald at (202) 418-2235 
>>> oreliot.greenw...@fcc.gov 
>>> >> >; or Rosaline Crawford at (202) 418-2075 
>>> orrosaline.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 
>>> .
>>> 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

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Eugenia Firth]

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  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 
>> 
>> (Word) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc 
>> 
>> (Text) 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 
>> 
> 
>> Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July 17, 2013): 
>> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307 
>> 
> 
>> For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwald at (202) 418-2235 
>> oreliot.greenw...@fcc.gov 
>> > >; or Rosaline Crawford at (202) 418-2075 
>> orrosaline.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 
>> .
>> 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 ht

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Donna Goodin]

That's why I thought people might want to comment.
Cheers,
Donna

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Mike Arrigo  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 
>> 
>> (Word) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc 
>> 
>> (Text) 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 
>> 
> 
>> Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July 17, 2013): 
>> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307 
>> 
> 
>> For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwald at (202) 418-2235 
>> oreliot.greenw...@fcc.gov 
>> > >; or Rosaline Crawford at (202) 418-2075 
>> orrosaline.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 
>> .
>> 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.

Re: FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Mike Arrigo]

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 

(Word) 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc 

(Text) 
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 



Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July 17, 
2013): http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307 



For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwald at (202) 
418-2235 oreliot.greenw...@fcc.gov 
>; or Rosaline Crawford at (202) 
418-2075 orrosaline.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 
.
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.

FCC seeks comment on Amazons request for waiver of accessibility requirements

[Donna Goodin]

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
(Word) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc
(Text) 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

Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July 17, 2013):  
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307

For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwald at (202) 418-2235 
oreliot.greenw...@fcc.gov; or Rosaline Crawford 
at (202) 418-2075 orrosaline.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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.