So, where do you draw the line between accessibility and accessory?

Sure I can ask a friend to describe what is going on during a movie or a
play.  But that implies that I will always have a friend along.  Not to
mention that it might disturb the people around me.

If we should not make a big deal about things that are just conveniences
why should we have braile on the outside of elevators?  I could always
just ask someone when I get to the floor.  I have yet to meat a person,
sighted or blind, that requires programs like real audio for their job.
Yet I hear people yelling about accessibility to that program.

I'm not saying there is a right or wrong here, just that the lines can
blurr pretty easily.

And why did Ms. Kong have to throw in that crap about a blind person being
inseccure or uncomfortable with their blindness.  It had nothing to do
with the issue.

And especially at the end where she said, and I'm way paraphrasing here,
"if we have to ask for things like audio descriptions that cost extra
money aren't we saying that we need so much more and that is a burden on
movie houses and play houses."

So does that mean that we should not ask companies to lay out money for
adaptive equipment?  Would it be wrong for me to approache my employer and
ask them to purchase an upgrade to my speech package because it might help
me do my job better?

Does that mean we should abolish S.S.I?  Talk about a burden.

End Rant.


Dan

-----
Blue Skies
Dan Rossi
(412) 201-3634
[log in to unmask]