I haven't read all of the postings on this topic but have read many and 
would like to offer a couple of comments.

1.  For many years, like other magazine publishers The ARRL has granted 
permission to have QST available for us free of charge.  While it is later 
in becoming available, it is free.  Our dues for membership in The 
Organization without receiving QRZ are less than 1/3  the charge for 
regulars and yet we have access to The Magazine in a few weeks. Of course, 
we don't have access to the ads and those do provide useful information yet 
we don't know the degree of access we will have to them in the digital 
version.

3.  I am a strong advocate for accessibility but think we should first see 
what the new format will allow us to read and if needed, proceed in an 
advisory capacity, not in a hostile way. And, we should expect to pay 
regular dues  membership if the digital magazine is made available for us as 
a part of that membership.

73:
Bob


EchoLink Node - 55127
Please visit http://www.wan-leatonks.net.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin McCormick" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: Regarding Digital QST Accessibility


> Thanks for one of the more thoughtful messages. I will
> respond to a few points.
> Lloyd Rasmussen writes:
>> A lot more research and negotiation has to be done before anyone would
>> want
>> to file any sort of lawsuit against a magazine publisher.
>>
>> I am pretty sure that ARRL said they also would be using Zimio as their
>> platform.  On December 17, Patrick Tyce sent us a link to a page out of
>> World Radio Magazine on the Zimio site.  Going to the page with
>> Window-Eyes
>> and either Internet Explorer or FireFox shows a bunch of links and no
>> article text.  Some of the links and the help text indicate that they 
>> have
>> some iOS apps; I have no idea whether or not they are accessible.
>>
>> But Martin McCormik reported in December that he could read the sample
>> page
>> using good old Lynnx.  I downloaded the page and found that it is
>> accompanied by a lot of JavaScript.  But the article text is also
>> contained
>> within a <noscript> section in the main HTML file, which explains why 
>> Lynx
>> could read it.
>
> In a perfect world, we could all just walk up to
> something and use it but we have the world we live in so we've
> got to figure out how to make it work which, sometimes, means
> finding the alternate ways to skin the proverbial cat.
>
> I will be 61 years old in a bit less than 5 months so I
> know what life was like 40 years ago. "QST" came in a cardboard
> box through my regional lending library. I even worked at that
> library for a few Summers while in college and then full-time
> between 1974 and 76 and I really don't remember if those boxes
> came from Science for the Blind or if we duplicated the tapes
> and sent them out from Oklahoma City, but I think the library
> just signed us up and Science for the blind shipped the tapes.
>
> Anyway, there were usually two 7-inch reels of tape in
> the box and the kicker, here, is that they were usually 6 to 7
> months out of date. The ARRL staff members read the articles on
> to the tapes and then they were duplicated at which point a lot
> of technical difficulty was introduced as dust, wear on the
> tape's oxide coating and rough handling by users took their toll
> on the sound quality.
>
> An old geezer routine on "Saturday Night Live" used to
> describe how rotten things were and ended each description with
> "That's the way things were and we liked it!"
>
> I'm not trying to pull that one, but I recently
> downloaded the February "QST" from bard during the last few days
> of February. No, it's not the same time everybody else gets it,
> but it beats the daylights out of 7 months and wearing out the
> Volume pot trying to keep up with the level changes.
>
> If the digital form of "QST" turns out to be accessible,
> how are we going to follow the circuits described. The present
> NLS reading of "QST" features descriptions of the schematics of
> projects submitted by amateurs. I usually am not interested in
> building these projects, but I have been known to read parts of
> those descriptions to find out how to connect a certain IC or
> other important details. If the day comes when we can read these
> articles on our computers, I bet good money those portions will
> not be easy to get at without help.
>
> Negotiation and discussion will accomplish far more than
> a screaming lawyer fest which would tick off the loosers and
> probably not produce any real winners.
>
> I know of situations where certain web sites are just
> horrible to access using assistive technology yet the argument
> is that they followed all the accessibility guidelines and they
> are telling the truth, but they didn't work with anybody so
> the end result is useless or darn close to useless.
>
> My few experiences with the ARRL have been positive and
> I bet we will end up with something wonderful if we are calm and
> deliberative and do not become litigious. That is an adjective
> which means to resort to legal  activity every time one is
> unhappy.