It took the blind community of Pittsburgh working together for four years
in order to bring access to blind people wishing to access electronic
information at libraries.

It took two blind computer users to join a sighted computer club in
Pittsburgh to get the members to realize the importants of making their
newsletter accessible to blind computer users wishing to belong to the
sighted computer club.

Sometimes we have to take a situation and make it work to our advantage.

Sincerely,

Jim Vaglia


On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Kelly Ford wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I received the following from Curtis Chong in response to my inquiries
> about the recent shopping services added to the NFB's internet offerings.
>
> I will preface my comments by saying that the solution to me is relatively
> straight forward.  Don't enter into financial arrangements where you profit
> from inaccessibility.  The end does not justify the means and this holds
> true whether you are the National Federation of the Blind or a thief
> walking through the door steeling for your own personal reasons.
>
> Should companies like Microsoft and the rest of the software industry get
> off the hook for software accessibility simply by saying that the vast
> majority of those who will use our offerings are sighted and will therefore
> not have a problem?  In fact the exact opposite is happening today and will
> continue to do so as legal guidelines continue to be strengthened to ensure
> that all, not just the sighted, can access the infrastructure of the
> information age.
>
> Should a college, university or other institution get off the hook from
> making its internet and other computing facilities accessible with the
> belief that the vast majority of students can see so tough luck if you are
> blind.  Again the exact opposite is true with several legal cases and other
> rulings making it clear that these organizations are responsible for
> accessibility whether they have one or one hundred blind students.
>
> Curtis says that the federation can not control the web and the sites that
> the federation comes in contact with, albeit indirectly according to him.
> Well this contact is not nearly as indirect as Mr. Chong asserts given the
> fact that the federation will get a five percent cut off the top of any
> sales made through this arrangement.  If the mechanics are in place to
> handle this accounting why are the mechanics for ensuring accessibility not
> given the same priority when the federation enters into a business
> arrangement?  These are not random third party web sites.
>
> Lest anyone be mistaken I could care not one bit whether the federation's
> cut is five or fifty percent as long as the infrastructure supporting the
> business transaction is accessible.  As I said earlier I think online
> shopping holds out great potential for people who are blind but if we don't
> demand accessibility our needs and concerns will be shunted to the side
> like a rusty rail car viewed as to troublesome to use.
>
> Under current legislation a physical building is not let off the hook for
> accessibility simply because those constructing the building contend that
> the majority of those who will use the facility do not have a disability.
> Nor is the legal obligation for such accessibility negated with the
> argument that some subcontractor was responsible for the actual work and
> well golly gee that company just didn't know.  The law and ethical
> considerations do not work in that fashion any longer.
>
> I say that there has been much happening of late that is in the vanguard of
> thinking and action when it comes to accessibility.  To be certain much
> needs to be done but comments and attitudes like that displayed by Curtis
> are restricting progress, not working to propell people who are blind into
> an accessible information age.
>
> I hope those who share my view will work with me to negate the outmoted way
> of thinking and backward beliefs represented by the recent actions of the
> NFB.  Accessibility does count and it is something that will add more to
> the world for people who are blind than any income generated with the
> attitude that accessibility should be pushed to the back because the
> majority of the world is sighted.
>
> I do not raise these problems merely to finger point.  It was only a couple
> days ago that I became aware of this problem.  To me the path for a
> solution is clear.  The NFB should immediately end the relationship with
> the Greater Good organization and only enter into arrangements that
> represent the best practices and legal requirements of web accessibility
> for all, not just the sighted.
>
> If you believe as I do, urge the NFB to join the forefront of web
> accessibility and to stop making money from an inaccessible web.  At the
> same time be sure and point out such a negative attitude regarding
> accessibility to the assorted federal state and other agencies which fund
> federation activities.  This type of attitude is simply not acceptable.
>
> You can find the NFB's main web page at:
>
> http://www.nfb.org
>
> The NFB shopping version of Greater Good is at:
>
> http://www.nfb.greatergood.com
>
> Kelly
>
> >X-From_: [log in to unmask] Sun Feb 21 19:59:04 1
> 999
> >Delivered-To: [log in to unmask]
> >From: "Curtis Chong" <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: "Kelly Ford" <[log in to unmask]>, "David Andrews" <[log in to unmask]>
> >Cc: "Curtis Chong" <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Re: NFB Shopping
> >Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:59:37 -0500
> >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> >X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
> >
> >Kelly:
> >
> >It may well be that for some of the stores referred to at the
> >greatergood.com site, access is a problem.  I have not had time to check
> >all of the links out, but what I saw was not a problem.  I will point out
> >to you that the majority of people who access the link will be sighted--not
> >blind and that although we should do our best to ensure maximum
> >accessibility to the web, we cannot control each and every site with whom
> >we come into contact--in this case, indirectly.  This is a regrettable
> >problem, and I understand that you feel strongly about this matter.
> >
> >Does this mean that the Federation is abandoning any support for web
> >accessibility.  Far from it.  We do the best we can to ensure that our
> >partners put up web sites that are accessible to the blind, but if the
> >partners with whom they work have unfriendly web sites, we are then
> >confronted with some hard choices.  Do we abandon the relationship because
> >a third party's web site may be difficult or impossible for a blind person
> >to use?  Or do we face the fact that the majority of those who access the
> >service will be sighted and will, therefore, not have a problem.  As I say,
> >we do the best we can, but resource trade-offs often have to be made.
> >
> >If you have a positive suggestion about how we can fix this particular
> >problem, I would be glad to hear and consider it.  It is always easier to
> >tell someone what is wrong rather than contribute a positive suggestion.  I
> >would like to think that you are interested in making a positive
> >contribution here.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Curtis Chong
> >[log in to unmask]
> >
> >P.S.  By the way, I do appreciate your bringing this to my attention.  I
> >will certainly take this under advisement, but again, I welcome any
> >positive ideas.  Abandoning the relationship with greatergood.com is simply
> >not going to be an option. CC
> >
> >----------
> >From: Kelly Ford <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: David Andrews <[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask];
> >[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: NFB Shopping
> >Date: Saturday, February 20, 1999 2:26 PM
> >
> >David and or Curtis,
> >
> >The two of you are the folks that I've seen be technology leaders from the
> >NFB.  I wonder if either of you knows what's up with the NFB shopping that
> >your organization recently enabled on the main web site.  As I mentioned on
> >the NFB list, as soon as you delve into this site, web accessibility goes
> >out the window.  Many of the stores and other online links conflict with
> >the stated guidelines for accessibility published by the federation at:
> >
> >http://www.nfb.org/webacc.htm
> >
> >Why is the federation promoting and from what I can tell seeking to make
> >money from an inaccessible internet design?  That seems to fly in the face
> >of common sense for people who are blind, no matter one's blindness
> >organization membership.
> >
> >I would dearly love to hear from the federation on this matter.  Web
> >accessibility is something that is very important to me.  The internet and
> >technology are the infrastructure of today and tomorrow.  They *must* be
> >accessible if people who are blind are to remain in the mainstream of
> >society.  Anything that diminishes and detracts from this goal is not a
> >positive step for people who are blind.
> >
> >Kelly
> >
> >
>
>
> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> To join or leave the list, send a message to
> [log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
> "subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
>  VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
>
>


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html