I'm not following your argument. I don't see how you connect this 
complaint against Google with "With all the handholding, they are losing 
the spirit of attempting to be self-reliant once they complete the 
sanitized school world you give them.So you are actually, while making 
school easier for them, crippling

them to deal with the real competitive private employment sector." I assume you're bringing in other issues I'm not aware of.


You ask who would hire someone from this protected class, but I wonder 
who would hire someone from a group where the tools you need to do your 
job are inaccessible. why would a school or a small business hire me if 
they knew I couldn't use the suite of google Apps they just purchased 
and installed for the rest of the faculty and employees?

You state that if these laws were totally effective we'd be seeing a 
different trend in employment among the blind, but I wonder how things 
would be if we didn't have such laws. I'm not convinced they would be 
any better, and I can think of numerous examples where proposed legal 
actions and complaints filed under the ADA have resulted in more 
accessilbe web sites, cell phones and so on.

You think these laws should be reworked, and I'm not saying they 
couldn't be better, but you don't offer any suggestions. It's a lot 
easier to tare something down than it is to build it. I'm wondering if 
you're not implying that we should all be a bunch of Uncle toms and be 
happy with the accessibility crumbs we're offered. We should only work 
in areas where some kind and progressive thinking company has decided to 
make something accessible for us.

For my part, I don't think fighting for what we deserve under the law 
means we've lost the spirit of self reliance. In fact, I think it shows 
quite the opposite. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense for these 
laws to exist and be on the books if they aren't going to be enforced.

I think legal action should be a last resort. I think everytime we 
engage in legal action we run the risk of increasing the level of 
animosity against the blind, so we need to take this into account when 
considering any legal action. I've voiced this opinion on several issues 
in the past.

In this case, however, I think this action is fully justified. We're not 
talking about people needing access to GMail to read there personal 
email, where they have plenty of other options. We're not talking about 
people using Google Calendar or google docs or Google Reader or Google 
Contacts or Google voice and so on to play with or fill out their 
personal information management needs. We're talking about small 
businesses and educational facilities replacing their IT infrastructure 
with google Apps. Now people need to use GMail, Google Calendar, Google 
Docs and so on to get the everyday tasks of their job done. If these 
applications aren't accessible or are grossly inefficient for the blind 
to use then they won't be competitive and they won't be hired by 
companies switching to Google Apps. Today Google may be more ubiquitous 
than Microsoft, and I think we should expect them to obey laws which 
have been on the books for more than 20 years.

--

Christopher
[log in to unmask]


On 3/16/2011 9:02 PM, Mike Pietruk wrote:
> Bill
>
> Wonderful.  More legal costs, more animosity, more restraint on
> development, and what have the blind gained from all this.  They still
> have difficulty in finding competitive private sector employment.  With
> all the handholding, they are losing the spirit of attempting to be
> self-reliant once they complete the sanitized school world you give
> them.So you are actually, while making school easier for them, crippling
> them to deal with the real competitive private employment sector.
> And with all this legal threat talk, who in the world would intentionally
> want to employ someone from that protected class.
> I sure wouldn't.
>
> What the blind organizations  have done is hurt the blind and totally
> misappropriated the original intention of the law.
> The laws have been abused and overused.
>
> The more I think about it, it's time for Congress to reconsider these laws
> and rewrite them to better reflect intention and control expenditures.
>
> This kind of approach creates hostility.  About the only thing that is
> being accomplished is billing hours for attorneys and expert witnesses.
>
> If these laws were truly effective, we'd be seeing a change in blind
> employment trends. and we are not.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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)
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Sun Sounds of Arizona wrote:
>
>> Not to mention that if these applications are being used by colleges and
>> universities, which they are, the colleges are to comply with access
>> guidelines too.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christopher Chaltain
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:59 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] Complaint: Google programs hard for blind students:
>>
>> 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]
>>
>>
>>      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]


    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]