I agree that law suits should be a last resort and that every time we resort
to a law suit then we use up some good will. However, I've been in the
technology field for 25 years, and I'd be a wealthy man if I had a dollar
every time I heard a developer say that they didn't take accessibility into
account when initially designing the product and now it would be too
expensive to make the application or technology accessible.
Ditto for every time someone said that this is a prototype or a research
project so accessibility guidelines or requirements don't apply. I think
there are three applications widely in use at the company where I work right
now that aren't accessible because they're officially research projects, and
I was assured that once they were rolled out then they'd be accessible since
they would no longer be considered research projects. I'm still fighting
those battles even though most of the people around me are now using and
encouraged to use these "research projects".
I also agree with someone else's post that the market doesn't drive
accessibility into products. The blind population just isn't big enough. In
how many areas do we have to purchase additional or separate applications to
achieve accessibility spending twice to ten times what the sighted
population pays for? How many times have we had to wait years before we had
accessibility to thinks like Windows, PC's, cell phones, MP3 players and so
on? In how many areas are we still fighting for an accessible solution at
any price? Also, as someone else mentioned, and as I hinted at above, it's a
lot cheaper getting accessibility in early than it is trying to get it in
after a product is already established.
In conclusion, even though I think law suits should be a last resort, and
I've spoken out against law suits that I didn't think were necessary and did
more harm than good, IMHO, this isn't such a law suit. I'm convinced that if
the DoJ hadn't jumped in at this time, accessible Kindels would not be on
the horizon.
--
Christopher
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Moore
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] Why Did Feds Claim Kindle Violated Civil Rights?
I thought it was just me.
The schools engaged in a limited study to see if the Kindle would be
feasible to replace the books. Apparently the students didn't find them
useful for a variety of reasons.
Before the entitlement generation took hold, people waited to see if there
was a real issue before suing. Now we're just brainwashed to sue at the
drop of a hat, and, every one suffers for it. Except, of course, the trial
lawyers.
Just maybe it would more useful for the government to deal with real
violations.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Pietruk" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] Why Did Feds Claim Kindle Violated Civil Rights?
Ana
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the journalist and Redenbaug in this
instance. As much as access is nice, this was a waste of tax dollars as
this was an experimental project at best. Iff you demand access at every
point, you are just adding cost to test projects and inhibiting their
experimentation.
This country, given the mass waste of money by our politicians in
Washington, can no longer afford law suits and federal actions each time
someone somewhere seeks to test out something.
All that was needed, in this instance, was a memorandum that the schools,
if this would be a universally established program for textbooks, be
required to use accessible equipment. That would have served warning to
Amazon, the Kindel developers, and the schools that ultimately the device
would have to incorporate accessibility features.
My stance may, on the surface appear blind unfriendly. As a blind
taxpayer, I like seeing my tax dollars used wisely and with discretion.
There is a time and place for federal intervention; on the other hand,
there is a time and place for the market forces to respond. In this
instance, the marketplace was not given that opportunity; and a warning
would have more than sufficed and probably accomplisshed the same end
without government waste and bureaucratic red tape interfering.
There is far too much interference in the lives of the population by
government as it is.
God's answers are wiser than our prayerss.
--unknown
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]
|
