I generally agree with this sentiment. I've spoken out several times 
against filing law suits to mandate DVS and other issues. In this case 
however, I think a law suit is perfectly justifiable. I felt the same 
way when the DoJ shutdown the university pilots where inaccessible book 
reading solutions were being used. People's livelihoods are at stake 
here, and it isn't like these applications predate the ADA. There's no 
excuse for this software not being accessible, and with more and more 
universities and small businesses using google Apps, if we don't get 
this resolved now, it'll only be harder in the future and more and more 
people will be shut out of job and educational opportunities because 
inaccessible software is allowed to be developed and distributed.

I also think the argument that these laws should only be enforced during 
times of prosperity is a slippery slope. I don't think civil rights 
should be tied to economics. Last I saw, Google was still hiring and 
giving out some pretty nice bonuses. Remember too that Google is behind 
Android, so I think they need to be held accountable and they need to 
know that the law applies to them and their products need to be accessible.

Finally, I don't think there's any debate over whether Google Apps is 
accessible or not. I think it's obvious that there are applications in 
Google Apps that are not accessible, and furthermore, it's obvious that 
even some of the applications that are usable by the blind are grossly 
inefficient to use with access technology. Even some of the more 
accessible applications have inaccessible features. I don't see how 
there can be any debate that a blind person having to use Google Apps 
will be at a severe disadvantage when compared to their sighted peers.

--

Christopher
[log in to unmask]


On 3/16/2011 5:39 PM, Mike Pietruk wrote:
> Amen, Catherine!
>
> This kinds of things costs millions upon of millions both for government
> agencies, say nothing of corporations.
> At times, these kinds of things may be necessary; but, as Bill outlines
> what and what doesn't work, Google doesn't fall into, at this time, a
> situation where I see government as unnecessary.
> If we are to be responsible citizens, we have to see where spending
> litigation dollars makes sense and where it is being done for pr, to
> alleviate inconvenience, and where work arounds are not available.
> This is the kind of stuff that has to stop else
> we, as responsible citizens, run the risk of jeopardizing future
> situations where real intervention may be necessary.
>
> We are now moving into a new era and no longer can, as a society, afford
> llitigation, at public expense, when other alternatives
> can resolve matters, if even they need resolving.
>
> If the NFB had to put up its own funds to finance these battles, I suspect
> that they would be far more prudent in picking their battles.  Rather,
> they want to go to the public watering hole and us taxpayers to sit idly
> by and say that this is ok.
>
> Remember, legislation on the books, upon which these actions rely on, can
> be repealed or modified.  If these laws, initially approved under good
> faith, get abused, taxpayers will insist that Congress reconsider matters.
> So it is imperative given the gross government overspending that these
> long-fought-for lwas are treated with respect and not as clubs raised at
> the slightest provocation, even if their letter suggests that they can be
> used.
>
> Just because you have the law supposedly on your side, at the expense of
> taxpayers I might add, doesn't mean that it has to be the first sought for
> remedy.  It should only be the tool of last resort when everything fails
> and truly for unequivocally important situations.  Stuff like this will
> raise the ire of people seeking them to contact their representatives in
> government  to stop the financing of what will be used as abuse.
>
> Remember, these laws hit the books during a time of prosperity; and
> clearly, we are not in that right now.  You wish to see these valuable
> laws remain around, treat them with respect and only seek their use under
> truly necessary situations -- not something lso simplistic as this which
> even this small group cannot reach a concensus as to whether this a mere
> inconvenience or a true problem with no alternatives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
> And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who
> comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek
> Him.
> --Hebrews 11:1,6 (NASB)
>
>
>      VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> Archived on the World Wide Web at
>      http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
>      Signoff: [log in to unmask]
>      Subscribe: [log in to unmask]


    VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
    http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
    Signoff: [log in to unmask]
    Subscribe: [log in to unmask]