Hi,

One may want to visit the ACB web page at www.acb.org  and take a look at
the February 1999 issue of the,Braille Forum, article on "Whose Philosphy
is it Anyway" for an opinion on where the NFB is coming from.

CharlieAt 03:32 AM 2/24/1999 -0800, you wrote:
>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
>
>
>


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