The wisdom of a commercial decision takes many factors into account.  One
of those is the damage which can be done by the disgruntled visually
impaired community.  The other is the likely loss of market share if the
product's release is held up.  Is the visually impaired community in the
United States really incapable of finding among its number any people who
can sit down and talk this thing over with Microsoft?  Or must I assume
that Microsoft frustrates attempts at achieving on-going dialogue on this
kind of issue?

I have nothing against a full frontal assault when negotiations serve no
purpose.  But blood-sport strikes me as potentially counter-productive in
some cases.  Has anybody ever given any thought to the question as to how
Microsoft is likely to treat them in future once the company realizes that
the reaction of the visually impaired community to IE 4 is something they
can live with?

JR
----------
From: Fernando H. F. Botelho <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: An analysis of our experience and response on
IE4.0inaccessibility
Date: Monday, October 13, 1997 11:05 PM

A commercial decision is made within a social, economic, and political
context.  If microsoft thinks it can get away with releasing an
unaccessible Internet Explorer it will.  By not reacting like the New
Zealanders we are making sure their next launch will also happen with
little regard to our segment of the market.

It is only our mobilization that can ensure that the wisest commercial
decision also happens to be one that benefits us.

Fernando


At 06:03 PM 10/11/97 +0200, you wrote:
>While I do not disagree with Jamal's analysis of the Internet Explorer
>incident, I believe that there is something more to add thereto.
>
>It is clear, from inter alia the New York Times report which was echoed on
>this list, that the release of Internet Explorer version 4 was significant
>to Microsoft's efforts at least to retain their position in the market.
>Internet Explorer represents a response to developments by other software
>developers and its genesis cannot be commented upon in isolation.  The
>decision to release Internet Explorer may, therefore, have been a
>calculated one.  In short, the senior management at Microsoft may well
have
>been perfectly aware of the likely reaction from the visually impaired
>community to their decision to release Internet Explorer without active
>accessibility.  They may, however, have decided to take that particular
>risk and to discount it against the adverse implications of holding up the
>release for the sake of the visually impaired community only.
>
>One may be angry about this decision, but one must accept, at the same
>time, that commercial decisions are not always prompted by callousness
>only.  Neither are unpopular commercial decisions of this type necessarily
>evidence of insensitivity towards the community which is disadvantaged
>thereby.  In fact, Henter-Joyce recently did a substantially similar
thing.
> I am reluctant to take up unnecessary bandwidth to explain the details of
>HJ's decision, but when I complained about it a number of beta testers
were
>quick to profess their sense of injury that I and like-minded people could
>complain about what was essentially a commercial decision.
>
>I believe that the New Zealanders totally over-reacted, but if it means
>that Microsoft's professed commitment to the accessibility of their
>software will be strengthened by what I now perceive to be an
>over-reaction, who am I to judge?
>
>________________________________
>Johan Roos
>Advocate of the High Court of South Africa
>Member of the Cape Bar
>624 Keerom Street Chambers
>56 Keerom Street
>Cape Town 8001
>Fax: +27 +21 24-9689
>Voice:  +27 +21 23-6199
>E-mail:  [log in to unmask]
>
>----------
>From: Jamal Mazrui <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: An analysis of our experience and response on IE
>4.0inaccessibility
>Date: Friday, October 10, 1997 8:53 PM
>
>My view on the iE4 matter may be summarized in the following points:
>
>(1) The Microsoft accessibility team made a public relations blunder by
>not alerting the disability community that Active Accessibility had not
>made the 4.0 release of Internet Explorer.  This alert should have
>been accompanied by an assurance that this was only a temporary setback,
>with a committment for when Active Accessibility would be included within
>this and other Microsoft applications.
>
>(2) We can probably assume that the Microsoft accessibility team has
>learned from this PR blunder and that it is unlikely to recur again.  We
>should give them the benefit of the doubt that MSAA was not included in
>IE 4.0, not because of them, but despite their efforts.  In other words,
>while we may have legitimately blamed the accessibility team for not
>alerting and reassuring us, we should put the blame on the release of IE
>without MSAA on senior managers at Microsoft.
>
>(3) Senior management at Microsoft should be sent a message from
>consumers that Microsoft should match deeds with words when it comes to
>accessibility to people with disabilities.  It is fine and proper for
>companies to tout accessibility in their product marketing and corporate
>image promotion, but this must be backed by substance.
>
>(4) Three forms of influence are needed upon senior management at
>Microsoft:  personal stories of the impact of IE4 inaccessibility, media
>stories that cause Microsoft to publicly defend its accessibility
>committment, and economic pressure from government and private
>organizations with significant purchasing power who communicate the
>importance of accessibility within their procurement criteria.
>
>(5) We should try to leverage Microsoft's clear mistakes with IE 4.0
>into a commitment to full accessibility of Windows 98 upon release,
>including MSAA in all parts of the software that  screen readers
>and other adaptive tools would otherwise have difficulty with.  We
>should call for the release of Windows 98 to be delayed if necessary
>until this is done.
>
>Regards,
>Jamal
>
>Net-Tamer V 1.09.2  - Registered
>
>