[ddots-l] Re: Are we speculating or do we know what is really happening?
- From: <ivanlopez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:02:11 -0700
What I am understanding is that accessibility issues with companies
are to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but then there are those
companies that are simply not interested in making there products
accessible to blind folks.
For the latter case I think the U.S. Federal Government should require
manufacturers of American products to insure that companies do make
efforts toward making there products accessible, or else give those
company some kind of consequence.
The problem we may come across even in the event that Federal law is
passed to make music software accessible to the blind, is that U.S. Law
would not be able to influence foreign manufacturers of music production
products and gear.
In the mean time I am sitting on my computer desk figuring out how to
access all the parameters in Z3tar+ that no one is apparently interested
in making accessible.
I have looked at the Z3tar+ manual and I want to delve in the process of
making HSC sets for Z3tar+, but part of me wonders if it will be even
possible with all the GUI stuff that Z3tar+ has.
I think I will wait till Z3tar+2 comes out because I don’t know if the
interface of Z3tar+2 will change from the previous version. Ah, got to
love my music hobby.
Cheers!
Iván
------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [ddots-l] Re: Are we speculating or do we know what is really
> happening?
> From: "Gordon Kent" <dbmusic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, July 15, 2011 4:31 pm
> To: <ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> ly time I ever was given the overt impression that a company had no interest
> in accessibility was with propeller heaeds (reason). They just out and out
> told me at a Namm show a while back that they weren't about to change their
> program in any way. Even Gary Garitan who can be a little prickly at times
> did actually make an effort.
> Gord
> Goo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ivanlopez@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 10:59 AM
> To: ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ddots-l] Are we speculating or do we know what is really
> happening?
>
> I am hearing folks say at least three different things regarding making
> software blind user friendly: If some companies do not make blind user
> software on the basis of difficulty, that is one thing, if they don’t
> do it on the basis of misinformation, that is another, and if they
> don’t do it because it is something they can do but they just don’t
> want to do it, that is another.
>
> For reason one, acceptance of the temporary dilemma is viable, for the
> second, as someone pointed out, if we blind folks know it will be an
> easy fix, lets educate the companies, if the 3rd is the reality, we
> might want to consider a civil rights rout.
>
> However, it looks like there is lots of speculation with the reality we
> are facing: are companies really not making their software user friendly
> because it is difficult? Are the companies not making their software
> accessible because they need more information because they lack
> expertise? Or are they not doing it on the basis of arbitrary or
> capricious action? Who really knows? I don’t
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [ddots-l] Re: Native instruments?
> > From: Chris Smart <csmart8@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, July 07, 2011 7:09 am
> > To: ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > At 08:08 AM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
> > >I think that a lot of companies think that making a piece of
> > >software accessible will require a complete reworking of the
> > >gui. There are much easier and more reliable ways of making
> > >programs accessible these days.
> >
> > Gord, I write companies regularly about this, but I don't have
> > enough facts to make a strong case that will make sense to the
> > programming folks.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on some of these methods?
> >
> > thanks
> > Chris
> >
> > PLEASE READ THIS FOOTER AT LEAST ONCE!
> > To leave the list, click on the immediately following link:
> > ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> > If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
> > ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > and in the Subject line type
> > unsubscribe
> > For other list commands such as vacation mode,
> > click on the immediately following link:
> > ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq or
> > send a message, to
> > ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > and in the Subject line type
> > faq
>
> PLEASE READ THIS FOOTER AT LEAST ONCE!
> To leave the list, click on the immediately following link:
> ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe
> If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
> ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> and in the Subject line type
> unsubscribe
> For other list commands such as vacation mode,
> click on the immediately following link:
> ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject�q or
> send a message, to
> ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> and in the Subject line type
> faq
>
> PLEASE READ THIS FOOTER AT LEAST ONCE!
> To leave the list, click on the immediately following link:
> ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
> ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> and in the Subject line type
> unsubscribe
> For other list commands such as vacation mode,
> click on the immediately following link:
> ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq or
> send a message, to
> ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> and in the Subject line type
> faq
PLEASE READ THIS FOOTER AT LEAST ONCE!
To leave the list, click on the immediately following link:
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
and in the Subject line type
unsubscribe
For other list commands such as vacation mode,
click on the immediately following link:
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject�q or
send a message, to
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
and in the Subject line type
faq
Other related posts:
