Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online

  • From: "qubit" <lauraeaves@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:26:27 -0500

Yes, exactly.  But what sites were difficult to navigate?   I know I brought 
up amazon. I never used their text only pages like they suggested.  As I 
remember, I took my screen reader and plowed into the mainstream pages, 
which were hard to navigate, but doable.
I assume now the text only pages of amazon have been completely scrapped.
I want to read more about the npii
happy hacking.
--le

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "LU OGBE" <oluogbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online


I totally agree with Sina's point as current web standards & best practices
have been improved because it was observed that alternative versions of web
applications had a few issues;

- They are sometimes out of date
- Though they might be accessible, they are quite difficult to navigate
- They do not promote collaboration between sighted & non-sighted users

Regards,
LU

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sina Bahram" <sbahram@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 6:43 PM
Subject: RE: GNU Accessibility Statement Online


>I disagree. I think if you follow good web standards, and appropriate
>practices, then it can be accessible for all users.
>
> To borrow an excellent line from my friend, Chris Hofstader, which he
> shamelessly and proudly stole from a wonderful historical
> figure:
>
> Separate is not equal.
>
> Let's accept that, and move on.
>
> Take care,
> Sina
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of qubit
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 9:50 PM
> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online
>
> So you view cloud as innovation -- it is interesting, I'll say that.  But
> that gets back to the agent string problem I mentioned in
> my last mail.  If the string (or whatever it is) indicates a certain user
> needs a special accessible web page, then that web author
> will be forced to maintain 2 versions, and the whole segregation thing
> comes in again.
> It is as costly to maintain multiple webpages as it is to design one, and
> most site authors will not do it readily, not because of
> lack of caring, but for economic reasons.
> I will read on in my mail before commenting further, except to say that we
> are talking about something different from the web as in
> the 90s, so I need to read up on cloud before getting more involved in
> this discussion.
> --le
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jared Wright" <wright.jaredm@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 4:45 PM
> Subject: Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online
>
>
> I would think a part of optimizing any sort of cloud-based, widespread
> accessibility framework would involve discerning which users were using
> it so as to not send a lot of unnecessary accessibility-related data
> back and forth with users who aren't utilizing it. As more and more
> software goes into the cloud, it seems reasonable to assume that
> accessibility features of those cloud-based applications might be
> enabled or disabled on a per user level, and a user could seemingly be
> asociated to whatever accessibility features they have chosen to enable.
> As the software goes into the cloud, some of the accessibility will need
> to as well. It won't always be sufficient to have local access solutions
> for dynamically changing applications on a web platform, although most
> access solutions today are based locally.
>
> Just clarifying what I think the issue might be, personally I at this
> juncture am simply willing to put my paranoia aside in favor of the
> increased flexibility and potential of the cloud computing model. I want
> privacy to be protected, but I'd rather not see technology stagnate on
> account of it.
>
> Jared
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/27/2010 4:29 PM, Sina Bahram wrote:
>> How are they easy to identify?
>>
>> I'm not sure why you are blanketly accepting this premis?
>>
>> How would you identify someone is using a screen reader or any other
>> assistive technology if they are connecting via a web service,
>> SSH, private protocol, or whatever.
>>
>> Take care,
>> Sina
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of qubit
>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 4:17 PM
>> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online
>>
>> Interesting argument.  My only question is, would I have access to my own
>> data on the server?
>> Anyway, I agree privacy applies to everyone equally and not just persons
>> with disabilities, but I think one difference is that the
>> disabled persons accessing the server are easy to identify, and therefore
>> there is an inherent privacy issue for them in particular.
>> I don't know if this is why the statement appears in the GAS.  Perhaps
>> Chris can answer.
>> --le
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Sina Bahram"<sbahram@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To:<programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 2:28 PM
>> Subject: RE: GNU Accessibility Statement Online
>>
>>
>> With all due respect, I don't believe anyone deserves or needs privacy
>> more
>> so or less than someone else. Privacy should be an
>> inalienable  right given to all individuals or none. So, I respectfully
>> disagree that folks with disabilities are any different than
>> those without disabilities, or certain ethnicity groups, and so forth.
>>
>> With respect to your seemingly circular argument that cloud computing
>> somehow is more or less secure than self computing. I do not
>> accept this as a reason nor as a valid excuse. It seems that your primary
>> argument against cloud computing revolves around the
>> decentralization of information from one's own ownership. In other words,
>> you claim that because my data resides in Boston, New
>> York, or Beijing, it is somehow less secure than if it is on a computer
>> system I own.
>>
>> If you like, I can actually point you to several academic papers which
>> have
>> shown quite effective double blind security measures;
>> for example, using something like pgp for communication layer, AES for
>> data
>> protection, anonymizers for privacy protection, and
>> things such as the onion router for protection against tracing you down
>> via
>> TCP/IP access patterns.
>>
>> So I believe if appropriate measures are taken, it can actually be far
>> better with respect to privacy concerns that one's data is
>> not on computers that one owns. That way, it is not tied to a physical
>> object that can be linked to you. To this end, I posit that
>> keeping the data on your own computer can be just as, if not more so,
>> harmful to privacy, and I disagree with the free software
>> foundation's inaccurate advice to keep data in one easy to surveil, easy
>> to
>> capture, and easy to associate place. The techniques you
>> suggest and advocate for can actually harm privacy related concerns, not
>> advance them.
>>
>> All of this having been said, why are we mentioning it in an
>> accessibility
>> statement?
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Just talk about accessibility, not about privacy.
>>
>> Take care,
>> Sina
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris
>> Hofstader
>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:23 PM
>> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't disagree and wanted the statement removed but it is a GNU
>> statement
>> and must, therefore, it needs to reflect the
>> fundamentals of FSF.
>>
>> Also, people with disabilities need privacy more so than others as
>> everything from insurance premiums to potential lawsuits may
>> cause problems when and if someone gets access to their information.
>> Remember, a person with disability will cost more to insure so
>> companies may be reluctant to hire them for that reason alone.
>>
>> If asked about this statement, though, we can point to Bill Gates who, in
>> a
>> COMDEX keynote address a bunch of years ago, he made a
>> strong statement against server based programs, citing a value of putting
>> computes in the hands of the individual and also raising
>> privacy concerns.
>>
>> Also, there are people in jail in China because Yahoo turned over records
>> stored on their servers. Why not expect that the US
>> security infrastructure would be following all transactions on Skype,
>> MSN,
>> etc. giving them a lot of information into which they can
>> cast a wide net.
>>
>> There's a lot of problems with server based systems ranging from privacy
>> to
>> a centralized data bank that can be mined for all sorts
>> of reasons.
>>
>> Lastly, there is the question of who controls your computing and your
>> data.
>> Local systems put you in charge while who knows what
>> google might do with or to your information.
>>
>> Of course, I could be wrong.
>>
>> cdh
>> On Mar 27, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Sina Bahram wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The following statement really got to me:
>>>
>>> "and please don't invite users to do something on a server that they
>>> could
>>> conceivably do on their own computers."
>>>
>>> I understand that Stallmann is one of the leading activists against
>>> cloud computing, but why on earth are you allowing such an agenda to
>>> creap
>>> into a statement on accessibility?
>>>
>>> In my opinion, this one statement completely undermines the rest of the
>>> things you're trying to do.
>>>
>>> Take care,
>>> Sina
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris
>>> Hofstader
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 9:00 AM
>>> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: GNU Accessibility Statement Online
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> For a couple of months, Richard Stallman and I have been working on
>>> the GNU Accessibility Statement (GAS)  which takes a no nonsense
>>> approach to endorsing the rights of people with disabilities as regard
>>> software within the context of free software. I've never
>>>
>> read a more strongly worded statement from any organization regarding
>> software and people with disabilities.
>>
>>> GAS also takes a strong stance on free software values but does not
>>> endorse any specific license, although we would like people to use GPL.
>>>
>>> You can read the statement at:
>>> http://www.gnu.org/accessibility/accessibility.html
>>> and send comments to me that we can consider for future revisions of the
>>> statement.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> cdh
>>>
>>> __________
>>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>>
>>> __________
>>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>>
>>>
>> __________
>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>
>> __________
>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>
>> __________
>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>
>> __________
>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>
>>
>
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
>

__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind

__________
View the list's information and change your settings at 
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. programmingblind
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2010