All fellow-members of VICUG,
I thought this would be the exact forum to voice some of my concerns
about
the pending break-up of Microsoft by the Justice Department.
Now, before anybody jumps the gun and assumes that I am a Clinton-basher
and want to
cause the current administration any embarrassment please put those
thoughts aside. That is certainly not my aim.
My concern, however, is that the break-up of Microsoft could pose
serious problems for the blind community and
the progress of accessible software.
Let me make my point this way; how many of you know of software
vendors that have politely (and in some cases not so politely) told us
that there is not enough money in it to make certain their software is
accessible for
us.? I can come up with 2 right off the bat; Intuit Systems (Turbo Tax
and Quicken) and AOL (NFB is
currently engaged in a lawsuit for their lack of concern).
With this in mind, is there any reason that we in the blind computer
user community should feel confident that a
divided Microsoft would pursue accessibility? I for one do not care to
take that chance.
And, yes, I am aware that Microsoft has not been perfect in showing
concern
for blind accessibility (witness Internet Explorer 3.0), but nobody is
perfect and this company has made a policy of voicing
concern over accessibility.
So my ultimate question is - are any of you interested in filing a
"friend of the court" brief
in defense of Microsoft as it currently exists? Or pursuing a letter
writing campaign on behalf of
Microsoft? Surely some of you feel as I do - that is that
Microsoft has afforded us a great deal of access and the risk of losing
that commitment is not
an acceptable risk for us to assume.
For those of you that agree with my concern, any ideas as to how we
could approach entering this thing on
the side of Microsoft?
Just thought I'd open this up for discussion - hopefully not too late!
Bill Gallik
[log in to unmask]
Bill Gallik
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Pierce" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: NET: online training
: Crunch adds more information to the discussion about the online
tutorial,
: encouraging us to be supportive and actually try new and innovative
: approaches before considering effectiveness.
:
: kelly
:
:
:
:
:
: ---------- Forwarded message ----------
: Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 07:15:25 -0500
: From: crunch1 <[log in to unmask]>
: To: Kelly Pierce <[log in to unmask]>
: Subject: Re: NET: online training
:
: ok, people, how can i shoot down this idea, let me count the ways, you
all
: might wait until after a class has completed, before you talk about
how it
: can't be done, i have been on audio-tips, and i am using w e 3.1, and
guess
: what i can do both, i cdon't have a multi channel sound card, i happen
to be
: using double talk p c. also the audio is fantastic. let's see for
$400.00
: you get at home training teck support, etc. lets try to be
supportive for
: a change.
: ----- Original Message -----
: From: Kelly Pierce <[log in to unmask]>
: To: <[log in to unmask]>
: Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 5:02 PM
: Subject: Re: NET: online training
:
:
: > Linn has some additional ideas about the online training discussion
that
: > started about a week ago.
: >
: > kelly
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > From: Lynn Schneider <[log in to unmask]>
: >
: > Another reason I would recommend against taking this course is that
most
: > blind folks have older computers without multichannel sound cards,
making
: > interactive teaching very difficult. Also, the Livestream client
they use
: > on Audio Tips is not reliable enough to do something like taking a
class,
: > especially for the majority of blind folks who are still on low
bandwidth
: > connections. I spent many hours on Audio Tips in the past and
really
: > enjoyed it, but it was not uncommon for the audio to be less than
clear
: and
: > connections were often lost with the server. I have a lot of
respect for
: > Kathy Anne and I have absolutely no doubt that she would be an
excellent
: > teacher, but I'm not sure this was well thought out, and it is
: *definitely*
: > too expensive. I love this concept, but I'm not convinced yet that
the
: > technology is really ready for something like this.
: >
: >
: > 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
:
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
|
