Hi Bill and all,
Bill, thanks for your great message, it's exactly what I think.
To those of you who are against fighting for our rights, should we just
then, as disabled folks, say, "go ahead and kill us, we don't matter."
That's what happens in other countries, just like the netherlands, right
now. They're killing disabled, because nobody speaks up for them.
If we don't fight for our rights, nobody else will.
And while capitalism is a great thing, let's see now, does big business
care about consumers, heck no they don't.
Do you all love the amount of money you pay for internet, or phone service?
They don't care about consumers.
As a matter of fact, someone at a big telecom company told me, "Harry,
we don't care, if you consumers don't like it, go somewhere else."
And yes, I as a disabled man will fight for my rights, and yes, I do
also believe in responsibilities, for those who think I don't.
Harry
On 6/9/2014 12:53 PM, Bill Pasco wrote:
> Unfortunately, this is a political discussion masquerading as a technical
> discussion. I myself lived in the good old days of lack of concern in
> design for people with disabilities, and frankly I'll never go back. The
> devices we could use were horribly limited. Today's devices are far better
> because of the push from people with disabilities. WE laud Apple for their
> access vision, but they didn't do it solely by choice. They were forced by
> government contracts. Capitalism is doing just fine even if the line
> worker is not doing so well. Plus I need to correct a miss-statement I'm
> hearing all too often. Those who promote civil rights are not asking for
> equality of outcome, we are seeking equality of opportunity. Those are
> really different things and equality of opportunity has nothing to do with
> the Communist system.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Pietruk
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 2:54 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] From My Blog/My response to the braille Monitor
> Article About the iPhone
>
> Jeff
>
> What may seem as a lame excuse to you or me may not appear so to the
> developer. Keep in mind that each individual, to a situation, brings
> their own perspectives and values; and while to you or me, it may appear
> straightforward, it may not appear that to someone else.
> When that individual or business initially created something, they were
> not thinking about specific cases such as the handicapped, or, in most
> instances, other specific groups or situations.
> They weren't thinking about eliminating or discriminating their idea or
> product from some group or audience.
> They were thinking about whatever they were developing -- and that's it.
> If it worked -- or did not work for someone or something -- was hardly on
> their radar.
>
> And, if we legally began forcing these thought restrictions -- if that
> were even practically possible (which it isn't) -- the ultimate impact
> would be to stifle creativity.
> And that, in society, is exactly what is happening in many venues. For
> instance, in some fields and locales, it is so difficult -- or one has to
> jump through so many hoops -- that people or firms are not taking business
> ideas or concepts and putting them into action.
> Remember, when you create something and seek to profit from it, you take
> on a risk and if that risk is not be rewareded -- or is made so difficult
> to succeed -- one will choose not to proceed.
> That, for example, is why in capitalistic economies there is far greater
> innovation than say in the old Soviet Union.
> And we are losing that in the US with the complexities and burdens of the
> tax code, EPA regulations, all sorts of laws that the average individual
> just doesn't know about, and all the rest.
> Accessability may be important to you and me -- because we live in that;
> but, for example, do you or I understand the world of the Kansas wheat
> farmer or the guy fixing vehicles in Fort Worth or Sacramento?
> You may want to sell something out of your home -- and I may want to
> purchase it from you -- but 3rd parties may step in the way, interfere if
> they suddenly discover your selling or offering something, et al.
>
> If you or I developed a software program or device, or just came up with
> an idea which actually worked in solving something or someone, we hardly
> could envision its impact on 3rd parties that aren't on our radar scope.
>
> And please, no one tell me that I had to because it was in some law --
> perhaps even one not related to anything -- so I had to have been aware of
> it.
> My role, as a creator is to do just that -- not to anticipate consequences
> to anyone or everyone.
> When you do that -- and that's what's happening in 21st century America --
> you ultimately kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
>
> Free enterprise and capitalism ultimately works -- if you allow it to do
> so. It starts stalling when we throw in too many "catch yous" -- even if
> those may initially have been made into the mix with the best of initial
> intentions.
>
> We, as blind consumers, ultimately make out best if the marketplace is
> allowed to do its thing in its own way. Yes, you or I may not then be
> able to avail ourselves of every gadget, gismo or thing that comes along;
> but, then on the other hand, there will come other things that might serve
> you or my purposes even better if they are allowed to see the light of day
> without a high level of government interference.
>
> I rather live in that kind of environment which is one that flourished not
> all that long ago rather than in today's nanny state where I am supposedly
> protected from everything and ultimately benefit from less and less
> because of its being stifled.
>
> So that company or individual may wish to protect their proprietary
> development because of their economic or other interest; but, on the other
> hand, if you can demonstrate to them how your being taken into their
> circle will benefit both you and them, then everyone ultimately benefits.
>
> These days, we are too much focused on rights rather than opportunity.
> The playing field is never equal, nor can it be nor should it be. Forced
> equality guarantees only mediocrity at best -- and probably a lot worse.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kindness has converted more sinners than zeal, eloquence, or learning.
> Frederick W Faber, 19th century English hymn writer and theologian
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Jeff Kenyon wrote:
>
>>>> Sometimes the trick is trying to convince people that technology is
> adaptable.
>> Believe it or not I was able to use some touchscreen equipment without
> any audio assistance back in the mid-80s. It was mainly audio equipment.
>> Another excuse the comes across from some people is that programs are
> proprietary and they don't want to run the risk of somebody from the
> outside getting a hold of the programming language. In my opinion, that's
> just a lame excuse.
>> 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]
|