I probably should have "put a stop to this" as the big tough list moderator
(read sarcasm), but it's an interesting debate, so I've now twice freed the
list so messages can continue to go through.
Just to clarify Ted. I didn't say accessibility shouldn't be available out
of the box, just that it's unrealistic to expect that it will, and that we
therefore have to adapt. It's called learning. My coworkers who can't use
JAWS well can't use it well because they haven't really tried to learn it.
And my other point was that there are plenty of sighted computer users who
are just as befuddled by all things computer as these blind users are, so
accessibility issues aren't unique to blind people. But yes, it would be
wonderful (though pie in the sky) if we could all magically smoothly use the
computer regardless of disability, operating system, educational background,
etc. I'm just not expecting corporations like Microsoft and Apple to really
incorporate that into their business model.
And Teri, don't fire Ted!!!
Catherine
----- Original Message -----
From: "ted chittenden" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] time for a rant, is anyone with me here?
> Hi to all.
>
> Let me get this straight: Catherine Getchell (the moderator) thinks we
> shouldn't have "access out of the box" because a lot of the people she
> works with can't even use the access that is now available. Michael
> Pietrik believes we shouldn't have "access out of the box" because gaining
> access to a computer with JFW and WindowEyes is like purchasing a
> Cadillac. Dr. Teri Hedgpeth (my new boss--I wonder if my job is now on the
> line for writing this) believes we shouldn't have "access out of the box",
> because blind people fought long and hard for their access suppliers to
> gain access to the Microsoft system in the first place.
>
> While I agree with Dr. Hedgpeth's point (as well as the point made by
> another about Microsoft's monopoly), the question has to be asked: Since
> when have our sighted counterparts had to buy modification software in
> order to read their computers. Why should blind people have to purchase
> "Cadillacs" to gain the same access (which is not completely the same, as
> Ray Campbell notes). Am I missing something. I always thought the goal of
> blind people, whether in the NFB or the ACB, was to gain equal access to
> information (among other things) as the sighted. How can being forced to
> spend extra money that the sighted don't have to pay to get that access be
> considered evenly remotely fair.
>
> I rest my case. To all, take care.
>
> Ted Chittenden
>
> ---- Catherine Getchell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I have to say I agree with Mike here. A bit of realism for everyone's
>> day:
>> Having a disability necessarily means that sometimes, we can't magically
>> do
>> things "out of the box." I'm a rehab counselor, and my caseload consists
>> primarily of people with physical, emotional, and cognitive
>> disabilities.
>> So I'm constantly helping people buy wheelchairs, make modifications to
>> their cars so they can drive them, find just that right medication that
>> allows them to overcome a mental health condition sufficiently to work,
>> learn to use Dragon Naturally Speaking so they can use the computer, you
>> get
>> the drift. Almost everyone I work with needs some kind of modification
>> in
>> order to function at their maximum. So we blind people are not unique in
>> not having things right out of the box. I also have to point out that
>> many
>> of my coworkers across the state who are blind are frustrated with JAWS
>> because they never bothered to learn it well. Granted it comes more
>> easily
>> to some than others. But with just a little study and a lot of
>> on-the-job
>> practice, I can do everything on the computer that I need to for my job
>> and
>> personal use, and my job is quite computer-intensive. So no, we can't
>> have
>> it out of the box, but there are many screen reader options, including
>> using
>> a demo of one of the high-end models if you can't afford to buy the real
>> thing. It takes some time, some study, but frankly, my sighted coworkers
>> are awful at using the computer, and they often wish it were easier, too.
>> I'm not saying there isn't work to be done in getting companies like
>> Microsoft to make their software more accessibility-friendly. I'm saying
>> we
>> have no right to whine until we've learned to use all the features our
>> screen readers have to offer. Just my two cents.
>> Catherine Getchell
>>
>> Original Message -----
>> From: "Mike Pietruk" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 4:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] time for a rant, is anyone with me here?
>>
>>
>> > Harry
>> >
>> > I believe you really don't understand the screen reader concept. A
>> > screen
>> > reader, first of all, in the hands of a skilled user, does far more
>> > than
>> > just read the screen and allow you to use programs.
>> > It facilitates things; allows customization, tricks at getting at
>> > things
>> > faster, more easily, more conveniently -- whatever.
>> > Do you truly believe that a monopolistic company, building a screen
>> > reader
>> > into its software, will achieve the complexity and creativity of jFW
>> > and
>> > Window-Eyes, update things as times and environments change, do the
>> > handholding that they do, and all the rest.
>> > What is full access out of the box anyway?
>> > You pretty much have it these days with the products on the market
>> > assuming you know how to use your favorite screen reader.
>> > In the hands of a neophyte user, even with a system built-in, that
>> > person
>> > won't have full access until they learn how to use that screen reader.
>> > You have the cadillacs with WE and JFW; an intermediate priced product
>> > in
>> > the offering from Serotek, and you have free screen readers out there.
>> > MSFT understands that these companies understand their customers' needs
>> > and
>> > openly works with them. What you are complaining about, Harry, is the
>> > cost of the Cadillacs, not that you must use a 3rd party product.
>> > To a large degree, you get what you pay for.
>> > Have simple needs, then go with one of the free screen readers.
>> > Want more bells and whistles, then you end up paying.
>> > That is how life works, and MSFT isn't a charity.
>> > You have greater access today than you ever had; and if you have
>> > minimal
>> > needs, you can even get away using the Cadillacs as they offer timed
>> > demo
>> > versions which can be restarted over and over and over.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It is a glorious thing to know that your Father God makes no mistakes
>> > in
>> > directing
>> > or permitting that which crosses the path of your life. It is our glory
>> > to
>> > trust
>> > Him, no matter what.
>> > Joni Erickson Tada
>> >
>> >
>> > VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
>> > Archived on the World Wide Web at
>> > http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
>> > Signoff: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
>> Archived on the World Wide Web at
>> http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
>> Signoff: [log in to unmask]
>> Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> Archived on the World Wide Web at
> http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
> Signoff: [log in to unmask]
> Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
Signoff: [log in to unmask]
Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
|
