Gary,

I do not disagree that there are different approaches to accessibility.
However, this note, which you've probably read on another list, illustrates
that there are consequences to how the federation offerings exist today.
What's wrong with a note on the federation page right now mentioning that
some of the stores do not reflect accessible design, a concept endorced by
federation resolution 98-03.

Kelly

>X-From_: [log in to unmask] Wed Feb 24 00:05:44 1999
>Delivered-To: [log in to unmask]
>X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32)
>Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:02:39 -0800
>To: [log in to unmask]
>From: Kelly Ford <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: NFB Resolution on Electronic Information
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Sender: [log in to unmask]
>X-Status:
>
>Steve,
>
>I would have thought that the discussion on the page author's willingness
>to change would have already taken place within the federation.  I would
>have hoped that accessibility was a key factor in choosing this particular
>fund raising mechanism.  That is what boggles my mind because I can't
>understand why the organization would seek to raise money using a vehicle
>that isn't a shining example of organizational beliefs and goals.  Failure
>to do this saddens me.  Why not at the very least stick a note on the
>federation page explaining that some of the shopping pages may not reflect
>federation desires like those expressed in resolution 98-03 or your
>published guidelines on web page accessibility.  Working to correct the
>problem is all well and good but at the very least alert folks to where you
>are.
>
>In my efforts to work on web accessibility certain web authors have told me
>that they have consulted with the NFB.  Well I'd certainly not want the
>next person who happens on the NFB's web site to think that the shopping
>links are an example of accessible web design.  Yet human nature is such
>that many will think just that.  I say this partly based on the reasons
>that this situation was first called to my attention.  A web author for a
>state agency here in Oregon phoned me asking about alt-tags and frame
>titles because he said he had been exploring different blindness sites and
>noticed some quirks on part of the NFB site.
>
>In our discussions I determined that it was the linked shopping sites he
>was talking about but the point is that the service, at least to some, now
>has the federation stamp of approval.
>
>I am personally quite disheartened at the tone of the response I received
>from Curtis.  I must say his attitude wasn't unexpected though because I
>can honestly say that my experience with the NFB has often been a do as we
>say not as we do attitude.  I ask if the federation would passively
>tolerate a reply that the majority of the folks using a resource are
>sighted so we'll optimize things for them and worry about accessibility
>later.  Again I point you to resolution 98-03.  For that matter take a
>browse of resolutions 98-04 and 98-05.  The former challenges the set top
>box industry to shape up and start talking to folks that are blind, the NFB
>in particular, about accessibility to their technology.  That doesn't sound
>like the federation accepting the attitude that the majority of people who
>will use these set top boxes are sighted so let the chips fall where they
>may.  Resolution 98-05 says that Tech Act programs should do better for
>people who are blind.
>
>You say I'm fostering fighting between people who are blind instead of
>using energy to solve a problem.  Well my first emails and phone calls went
>to the folks at Greater Good and have as of yet gone unreturned.
>
>But Steve it was the federation, not myself, who for whatever reason signed
>up with this service.  It was the federation, not I, who for whatever
>reason opted to raise money in a fashion that seems to fly in the face of
>what promotes positive aspects of blindness.
>
>At the very least I'd like to see the federation stick a warning on the
>site mentioning this issue.  Right now all the site says is shop our stores.
>
>Jim Marx talked about a bumpy path.  Well how's about at the very least a
>warning alerting folks that are blind that they may experience a few bumps
>and branches.  The federation is afterall getting a piece of the pie from
>anyone who walks on that bumpy road.
>
>At this point it does seem somewhat fruitless to continue to hash these
>issues here.  I am left with the same impression I had after speaking as an
>invited guest to the Oregon NFB convention a year ago.  At that convention
>a speaker extoled the virtues and championed the cause of getting human
>resource departments to provide things like insurance forms and such in
>accessible formats.  Yet when someone asked why certain convention
>materials weren't in accessible formats the person was roundly criticized
>and told that if he didn't like things he should come and fix them himself.
> And this from an organization that talks so much about braille literacy.
>Having the materials in accessible formats should have been a definite to
>do item, just as finding a hotel must have been.
>
>I say that if beliefs are part of your core, than anything and everything
>you do should reflect those beliefs.  It seems to me that the federation's
>pursuit of money has some negative impacts on other beliefs.
>
>I personally plan to continue to attempt to get a contact from the Greater
>Good web site.  Although parts of what they do strike me as inaccessible, I
>don't believe the solutions in most cases would require much effort on
>their part.
>
>That said, I see an organization that claims to speak for the blind not
>living up to what it professes as organizational beliefs.  Further, parts
>of the shopping site are decidedly not good web design for accessibility.
>I think it only right to raise that issue as well.  I have long promoted
>positive web sites and worked to correct negative.  You may not agree with
>my strategies and I may not agree with yours.  I have had successes and
>failures, just as I'm sure you have had in your efforts.  I must say that
>my successes have far outnumbered the negatives and I feel it appropriate
>to promote the positive and note the negative.  I plan to continue to do
>both.  My initial inquiries to the federation asked who was involved with
>this and as I said I think the response from Curtis was not very positive.
>Or perhaps I should say it didn't reflect the attitude with which I've
>approached making the world a better place for people who are blind, an
>attitude that has served me well thus far.
>
>Kelly
>
>
>At 04:49 PM 2/23/99 -0600, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Kelly,
>>
>>First, I accept that we may simply not agree on the best approach to
>>this situation.  However, I doubt that the NFB is exceptional in that
>>we have links on our site that go to outside links that are not
>>accessible by our standards.  I did not read anything in Curtis Chong's
>>response to you that indicates that this is not of concern nor did he
>>say that it wouldn't be investigated.  In actual fact, we are more
>>likely to have an impact on the offending sites by having a link that
>>causes the inaccessible nature of the various pages to be revealed.
>>I'm not trying to say this was done by design, but since we are at this
>>point, we can either do what we can to make changes, or we can quietly
>>go away and let these pages continue as they are.  I don't think you
>>just a web page author solely on accessibility.  You have to look at
>>the author's willingness to learn and change, and as far as I know, we
>>don't have that information in this case yet.  In saying this, I'm not
>>trying to attribute some higher motive to picking this shopping
>>service.  My guess is that it seemed like a pretty painless way to
>>recover some costs.  But it seems to me that your approach punishes the
>>NFB to a degree and lets the offending page authors off the hook
>>completely.
>>
>>That is what has troubled me about this whole discussion.  What you are
>>doing is stimulating in-fighting among blind people with energy that
>>could be directed at changing the offending web pages.  Let's find out
>>how open the authors of these pages are to change.  If they are closed
>>to our concerns, then we evaluate our position.
>>
>>On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:14:54 -0800, Kelly Ford wrote:
>>
>>>Hi All,
>>>
>>>Several have criticized me over this NFB shopping issue and said that I
>>>should point out solutions.  I say that the federation should live up to
>>>the very resolutions the organization passed on the topic.  Curtis Chong
>>>said that it was unfortunate about the accessibility troubles with the new
>>>shopping services but that the majority of people using the service would
>>>be sighted so it was the way it had to be.  Well below is the text of
>>>resolution 98-03 passed at last summer's NFB national convention.  Again
>>>how can an organization ask the rest of the world to live up to one
>>>standard and not follow such a standard itself?  Why would the NFB get
>>>involved with something that flies in the face of this resolution?
>>>
>>>Kelly
>>>
>>>
>>>Resolution 98-03
>>>WHEREAS, developments in information technology now being
>>>used for communication by electronic means are changing the way
>>>in which ideas and knowledge are spread throughout our society
>>>and the world; and
>>>WHEREAS, the new methods of information exchange resulting
>>>from these developments are affecting participation in society in
>>>a growing number of ways, including personal communications,
>>>provision of educational services, conduct of business, and
>>>interaction with entities of government for required filings, to
>>>obtain information and services, or to take part in the political
>>>process; and
>>>WHEREAS, entities engaged in the design and use of
>>>electronic information technology have a responsibility to assure
>>>equal participation, especially when the technology or
>>>information content is intended for general use; and
>>>WHEREAS, the new forms of communication by electronic means
>>>hold much promise for providing blind people with ready access
>>>and equal participation, but except in the most unusual of
>>>cases the design of both the technology and the content
>>>presented presumes that everyone who uses the technology or
>>>receives the information can see; and
>>>WHEREAS, participation on equal terms requires equal access
>>>to the channels of communication and sources of information
>>>available: Now, therefore,
>>>BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in
>>>convention assembled this tenth day of July, 1998, in the City of
>>>Dallas, Texas, that this organization insist upon equal access to
>>>electronic information technology as fundamental to the right of
>>>equal participation throughout our society; and
>>>BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Federation seek the enforcement of
>existing
>>>laws and the enactment of new laws and standards for nonvisual access so
>that
>>>equal participation by means of equal (including nonvisual) access will be
>>>embraced as a fundamental right by all entities of government involved in
>the
>>>procurement, use, or regulation of electronic information technology.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Steve Jacobson
>>E-mail:  [log in to unmask]
>>National Federation of the Blind
>>
>>The Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the 3M Company
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>This mailing list is sponsored by the National Federation of the Blind, NFB.
>>For more information about the NfB, please call (410) 659-9314, point your
>>internet browser to http://www.nfb.org or Telnet to nfbnet.org.
>>
>>
>
>


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