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]
|
