Mike,
I understand your point, but disagree.  Making a level
undiscriminatory playing field is hardly hand holding. Just
because it was made unreasonably difficult for you as a
blind person, is no reason to wish that on others. I went
through public school and college in the sixties and early
seventies just like you without any of this so called hand
holding. I have fought my way up through the ranks and have
achieved a great deal of success. I know how hard it was,
and sure, it taught me some lessons. But that is no reason
to insist that everyone else has it as hard as I did. Who
knows how much farther I, or you, might have gone if you
were on a level playing field to start with instead of
having to spend significant time, energy, and money to
overcome ridiculous hurdles placed in your path which were
unnecessary and artificial.  I am by no means in favor of
constant litigation. However, if you really believe that
companies, all companies, will eventually do what is fully
in their power to do without being occasionally forced, then
you do not truly understand how pure capitalism and human
nature works . Google, could resolve these issues with one
hand tied behind their corporate backs. It would expand, not
contract, their market. 
Yet, they haven't done it. Apple made products totally
useless to blind people until their government contracts
were legally  threatened. Then what happened, they
discovered that it wasn't a big deal to make their products
accessible out of the box, and, shock, they found a huge new
market. Equal civil rights, are never a waste of money. If
blind people remain woefully unemployed, which as you are
correct in saying, they do, it isn't because a few companies
who should know better are forced to comply with the law. It
is attitudinal, as it has always been. It is the attitude of
the employers, and also the attitudes of many blind people
themselves. Both of these attitudinal problems will be
mitigated if blind people have an even shot, and they
themselves begin to realize that they actually have an even
shot. That isn't coddling, nor hand holding, nor spoiling.
That is called equal opportunity, one of the fundamental
tenants of our constitution. So, congratulations, you are a
miracle, and so am I. We have succeeded where many blind
people have failed. Does that make you feel special? It
shouldn't. It should make you feel sick and angry that so
many of your fellow American citizens are never given the
chance that the average person is born with. That is
ultimately all this is about. There will always be
exceptional people, both sighted and blind. However,
expecting every blind person to be exceptional is not
reasonable. Every sighted person isn't exceptional. They
have an equal shot, and they will either fail, just get by,
or do well depending on many circumstances. One of those
circumstances though should not be artificial hurdles thrown
in our paths just because a company is too lazy or ignorant
to comply with a very reasonable law. Yes, it is the law.
The law will not be worth the paper it is written on if it
isn't enforced when it is ignored. If you don't like the
law, then work to change it, but in the meantime, enforce
it. If you, as I, truly came up during the sixties, then you
know how much worse it could be and was before this law was
passed. Do you really want to go back there? I sure don't.

With due respect:

Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Pietruk" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Sun Sounds of Arizona"
<[log in to unmask]>
Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] Complaint: Google programs hard for
blind students:


> 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]