Contafct jd. he is a prt of the ham thingy for the nfb. they conventionis this year so maybe he can disguss th epossibalities.
S
On May 29, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Maurice Mines wrote:
> A set of basic specifications, would certainly have to be worked out. I =
> agree with you, however the problem that I see is how would we get =
> enough people for this to actually work out. What I do see potentially =
> happening is maybe some dialogue being started. The other thing I think =
> might be useful, is to get the American radio relay league to help a =
> group of us, to get the attention of all of the different parties that =
> are involved in potentially doing this. What I mean by that is they have =
> a testing and standards based regime already set up, we could draw on =
> the experience and hopefully some technical expertise from the amateur =
> radio groups in both B. and B. and ACB, i.e. we must work to gather en =
> masse, it should not be two organizations apart from each other. If =
> created if it becomes any effort that is in the Ouray Seabees =
> separately. It will not work. This liken it to legislation we must be =
> united on the subject. Call me crazy but remember we are such a small =
> minority that any fractures in the front will simply be regarded by =
> business and indeed would send and their distributors have been fighting =
> and us will be locked away from immediately. Just curious to know what =
> everyone's thoughts are. Mori's minds, amateur radio call sign, KE0R I =
> KL.
> National Federation of the blind of Colorado assistant newsline =
> coordinator, office phone 970-373-3076.
> University of Northern Colorado student e-mail =
> address,[log in to unmask]
> note this document has been dictated by using MacSpeech dictate, some =
> words may be spelled incorrectly, be in the wrong context, so please =
> bear with the software if this does not quite come out correctly. Please =
> offer any comments good or bad about how well this is working.
> On May 29, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Dave Marthouse wrote:
>
>> We as a group would also have to establish a consensus as to what
>> accessibility features should be present in the "final model" before =
> it is
>> declared as accessible. In other words a set of specifications would =
> have
>> to be established.
>> =20
>> Dave
|