Category: Let's talk
NFB's apple accessibility resolution really worries me for a few reasons.
1. I find that the text of the resolution is much too forceful, and unrealistic.
Considering people at national convention 2011 were complaining that apps like
angry birds were not accessible on the convention floor, this isn't surprising. I'm
sure this stance hasn't abated amongst the hardcore accessibility advocates.
But its unrealistic at its core. Because of the game play of many visual games,
there is no logical way to make them accessible, with out forcing redesigns of
products that would negatively effect most of their consumer base. This is
hardly fare considering these apps are not critical to us functioning in society.
the word all being in the resolution implies to me a sense of unrealistic
expectations at the very least, and a grandiose sense of selfish entitlement at
most. the resolution is asking for something that's simply not possible. You can
argue that the spirit of the resolution advocates making all reasonable effort to
insure accessibility is implemented where it makes sense. Sadly, the text
contradicts this viewpoint with the use of the word all.
2. Developers hearing about this resolution are reacting negatively to the idea.
Again, probably because of that blanket word "all", developers i've seen
comment on this issue are starting to view us as entitled assholes. Nothing
about the resolution looks reasonable to them, and they're starting to panic as
a result. The fact of the matter is, many of them don't mind making things
access friendly, when reasonable, but the text leaves no room for them to make
the call on what can and can not be made usable by the blind. Some of them
didn't know access technologies existed. Others are unwilling to completely
change the function of their apps, or the way they function, to serve a relatively
small chunk of our population. the fact of the matter is changing some apps
would fundamentally degrade the way they work for everyone else, as they see
it. they're not looking at this thinking "Oh, yeah, we can make apps that list
apartments for rent, book travel or let users access a social network
accessible." they're worried about their indie games, and the text of the
resolution does nothing to bring them comfort. Most developers i've seen write
on this topic are all for letting developers or users flag apps as accessible. they
are willing to indicate they value disabled customers. they're just worried about
their creative autonomy being violated. If you look at the text of the resolution,
can you blame them?
3. this action, and the comments prominent NFB members have made to the
media are not doing the blind much good will in the comment sections of
articles i've read. Again, just as in the last point, that word "all" isn't doing us
any favors. People are asking why we don't approach individual app makers and
let them make the choice, wondering how these changes will effect their use of
software, wondering if a better option than legal action exists... And on, and on,
and on it goes.
People think we're being a little unrealistic, and trying to back that threat up
with bullying legal action. People are not taking our situation seriously, they're
questioning why we'd take this to the legal stage.
TL;DR Everyone is saying this is complex/over reaching, because the
resolutions text doesn't allow for reasonable or rational standards for what can
and can not be made accessible. Because of that lack of foresight, people are
starting to view us as selfish, entitled and more than a little trollish. this isn't
the reputation we need.
A lot of perceptual damage could have been avoided if we allowed for
reasonable levels of access to apps where access is logical.
Better yet, people don't want us mandating access, but they do want us to be
able to flag apps as accessible, or let developers mark their apps as accessible.
It would have been a lot easier to reward developers for making apps
accessible, encourage more app makers to learn about how easy it is to make
some apps accessible and then consider what should and shouldn't be
mandated. Developers and users want a say, and we're leaving out half of the
relevant parties here.
I've posted this on twitter and Facebook already, so if you've run across it there,
I am sorry.
I just figured this is the kind of commentary that needs as much distribution as
possible, because its taking a realistic look at the situation, challenging the
popular opinion and bringing up points no one on the NFB side has.
Great post, James. Once again, here's the NFB at its best.
While I do agree with them on a multitude of issues and topics, I've never been one for the aggressive legal stance they always asume when trying to get something done. There's little to no room for diplomacy with this sort of an aggressive stance. I'm all for equality, but entitlement is a whole different beast, one which I cannot personally stand behind.
I too, have read NFB's resolution, and for one, I am not quite sure why they chose Apple to go after, of all companies. Apple was the first company to make a touch-screen access screen reader, the first in the industry, which was ported from the Mac to IPhone, that was simple, intuitive, and easy to use; not to mention, it worked with built-in apps just fine; something that the NFB says that some of the built-in apps in their resolution are inaccessible. Personally, I have never run across this issue at all; all of the built-in apps are outstanding, and the IPhone really levels the playing field for the blind. Now, I believe that a similar resolution was tried at the 2011 National Convention, but, thankfully, it didn't pass. Also, I think that the NFB gave Apple an award for its accessibility, but now they're going after them, threatening legal action?
That's like saying, "we go after the companies that try to make life better for the blind, not the ones who do nothing for us." Why aren't the NFB going after Microsoft? Why not the Windows 8.1 store, where virtually every app is inaccessible or Kindle? Oh, is it good enough that Kindle is using a version of Android, so it's accessible enough? What about Android? I used Android, and the accessibility just wasn't there. Let's go after Apple, because, it will really serve our population extremely well; i'm sure that the developers will make every app accessible, and people will be enthralled that they can now take pictures with 100% accuracy with Photoshop, play Candy Crush, and other popular visual games, which cannot be adapted because they are "visual."
Oh, and remember, this is the same group of entitled bitching and moaning blind folks who grumble and mumble over the KNFB Reader app, even though it is only $99.00. That's a hell of a lot better than when the first one originally came out, using the Nokia phones; that was around $1400.00. Most blind people, especially some places, are saying "I just don't have that type of money." "I should get it free, because I'm an entitled asshole. Sorry, but this is one more reason for me why the NFB is stupid, and I don't get involved with them.
By the way, it would be interesting to see these articles, James?
Nathan.
I fully agree with you, James; this concerns me greatly. The blind still have a high unemployment rate, struggle with guide dog access to public places in some areas, and - on the topic of accessibility - don't have access to many new touch-screen debit machine pin pads in stores - and the NFB resolves to force Apple - simply the platform for developers - to make all apps accessible? We have MUCh bigger problems than that, thanks much!
I couldn't agree more with what's already been posted. The more I read of the resolution, the less I liked it. I have a hard time understanding, as others have said, why they're going after Apple, the company that's probably done the most for accessibility, when we have Microsoft and Google, who haven't put as much into it.
OK, I admit I'm totally in the dark about organizational things, but could anybody please tell me what the general purpose of a resolution is? I'm asking because I guess I'm curious if they have any actual impact and will cause any changes to happen or are they more just a sort of opinion piece. I ask this because I am thinking if they're just a statement of opinion, even if they did make resolutions on somebody's favorite issues they thought were the most important, employment and such, would they actually help anything or is it just the organization saying in semi-legalese, "this is what we think ought to happen."
Totally agree with all of you and this is definitely why I won't be getting involved with them anytime soon.
Wow. I usually stay well away from - for lack of a better word - "blind politics", because in so many instances I feel uncomfortable with the entitlement principle. This just reenforces my concern. I'm all for having the world more accessible, and I even agree we need to take a stand in certain cases. But this is something entirely different. And ... angry birds? REALLY? Games being accessible - even time wasters like that - are all well and good, but for the reasons stated in post 1, not very practical. individual companies should be held responsible in certain cases, especially where accessibility is practical. And I agree companies should be willing to make the effort. But not like this. Not because they're threatened with legal action. That will draw resentment, and that's the last thing we as a minority needs.
I agree totally as all that have posted.
To answer a question, an organization like the NFB’s resolution means this is what they intend.
Winning isn’t the issue, nor changing thing. It is horrible for a large organization for the blind to take such a stance.
The non-visually impaired world sees this and rebels against us. They don’t know all blind people aren’t members of the NFB.
They don’t realize we all don’t agree.
They are in court being forced by the (blind).
It makes the blind community look as if we don’t care what has to be done, nor who has to do without the benefits given to them by nature, such as sight, we want everything to be built, for us.
It is like asking the companies that make movies to not place pictures on them, but only audio formats, because this would simply be completely accessible.
That is a silly comparison, but that is exactly what this is as well.
I’d say they are going after Apple, due to the fine work Apple has done for exactly that reason.
Many blind persons use these.
You might think your apps and all are accessible, but they aren’t totally, and as a blind person, there are many things you can’t do with your Apple device your sighted counterparts can in the same app you enjoy using.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
So, did the resolution pass or what? Also, what happens from here?
So, in follow-up to Godzilla, in interest of critical thinking:
Who reads the resolutions? Who, in the so-called sighted world actually reads them?
My question with resolutions of any kind is, why? Nobody has ever answered the question why. They are first nonbinding, second, not conducted by a branch of the government, and third, don't even function in the ways and means of government or corporate lobbyists.
Since none of my sighted friends in the developer community even know about the NFB resolution, I'm not worried about so-called reputation. Were they so shallow as to take one resolution and paint with a broad brush, I guess they wouldn't be my friends.
But someone who is educated in the legal profession, someone who is not a complete legal dumbunny like myself, maybe could shed some light on the actual purpose behind resolutions. I get that it makes an activist group feel good.
But actual purpose?
James, as a young skeptic, I have to say, I had expected a bit more from you on this one, with an explanation as to the real world impact of such things. Who has to read the resolutions? To whom do they get presented? And what company under the sun has ever taken nonbinding arbitration, if that is what this is, at all seriously?
I've seen the back and forth on this on Twitter. All I've gotten out of it is how poorly we train the young in the skills of critical thinking.
So sad.
Maybe I'm wrong, though, and there is a quantifiable damage, something that can be expressed outside of the nonfalsifiable claims and confirmation biases expressed on both sides on this one on Twitter.
For the little ones new to critical analysis, let's do it like this:
1. What legal weight does a resolution have?
2. How will it get to Apple, and what authority requires that Apple even receive, let alone read it?
3. Who is the governing body who would oversee the terms were met?
4. Who defines the terms?
I do remember this came up in 2011, and I asked the same questions.
All I get now that it's 2014, is people are still very unschooled in basic rational analysis.
I've heard a lot of nonfalsifiables and confirmation biases on both sides, but no clear definitions or rational thought from either.
My prediction: some websites will pick it up and write articles because it's contravercial and will get clicks. You all will talk about it on FB and Twitter and here for a few weeks. Then, as with many other resolutions, it will die a quiet death.
I know when I first heard about this resolution, I did not fear for my reputation and still don't but I did think the NFB was biting off more than they could chew. But as I see more reaction against it, I wonder if people are scaring themselves to death with horror stories of toys being taken away from them by Apple and all third-party devs for not being grateful and subordinate enough. It's like, yeah, blind people should work and strive and struggle to be treated exactly and precisely like real normal sighted able-bodied folks, but shut up and know your place and don't ever ask for too much or the man will punish you by taking everything away. Oh, and tell society it's perfectly fine to think we all think the same, none of us dare tell society they're wrong. Can't bite the hand that feeds you, etc, etc.
When inclusion been taking advantage of by some blind exclusive organization it becomes blind exclusion.
As you’ve pointed out Leo, this debate has hit Twitter.
Now, how many sighted persons follow things on Twitter?
The other problem with this, is that such a large “blind” organization feels this way, and petitions, or whatever you call it, its members to believe in this fashion.
Next, the NFB, after making such claims, is obligated to start litigation in court with companies they feel are against them, or “the blind.”
No matter how it might die a death, it is going to make some waves, and this organization is large enough that people will think the blind community things this way.
Don’t you think Apple has heard about this and is most likely prepared, unjustly, to fight the bullshit?
For those of you who believe sighted people do not follow things on Twitter, where exactly is your evidence to support such a claim? Given all of the tweets I have recently seen regarding the World Cup, I would say that sighted people use Twitter just as much as those who happen to be blind.
As for the resolution, if you are really not that happy with it, then perhaps you should step up, get involved, and write your own resolution! The only reason why this resolution passed in the first place is because someone had an idea about how to make the world a better place for those who are blind, and was willing to take a risk to make this idea a reality. If you truely do not like the resolution, then either step up and take action and do something about it, or simply quit your bitching and complaining if all you are going to do is sit on the sidelines while watching others take a risk to make things happen!
He's doing exactly that. He's allowing his voice and opinion to be heard.
He is stating his reasons why, and solutions.
For those of us who don't live in the States, the NFB resolution doesn't have teeth for us, which is why I for one am speaking out.
Also, no one is taking a risk with this resolution; it's nothing more than "we are a collective, so we have the power to be big bullies." Taking a risk is like a sit-in at employment agencies who provide sighted people either temporary or permanent work but pay lip service to the blind or just ignore us altogether. What would happen if blind people sat in at Manpower or Adecco, demanding they give opportunities for the blind, rather than taking our paperwork and never calling us again? THAT is a risk, not doing the equivalent of demanding Windows make all programmers make software run on their system accessible.
Kate
I'm sorry, but how does voicing opposition to a decision that has already been made a part of the decision making process? For those of you who are truely opposed to this resolution, then perhaps you should seriously consider writing your own resolution to present at next year's convention. If you are not willing to write your own resolution on this issue, then please stop complaining about a resolution that has already been written and adopted by the oranization. Again, there is no reason for you to complain if you are not willing to step up and be a part of the process. Change requires action, and without any action no change is made.
I don't think anyone has argued that sighted people don't use Twitter. Only, you can't follow every hash tag that trends. world cup, sure, because everyone is interested.
But in order for someone sighted to even know about the resolution, they would have to be following someone blind who had that information, or somehow turn up the #NFB2014 hash tag through some general search.
Using Twitter doesn't mean they saw the resolution.
I'm betting many on here don't see all the boating safety / water safety hash tags that trend during this season. Why? Because first, it doesn't cross your path to look for it, and second, Twitter is a huge, noisy place.
Silly straw man argument, nobody claims sighted people aren't using Twitter.
I don't know anything about the latest Twilight hashtags either, or the latest trending topics regarding Sudanese terrorists, or any number of other topics.
And many other people don't follow emergency prepreparedness timelines, artificial intelligence timelines, timelines related to any number of other groups.
Most the Christians I know don't follow trending atheist topics. And I don't follow the Christian topics either.
So yes, of course, sighted people use Twitter. But it doesn't follow that they will automagically run into this resolution, because it doesn't impact their world.
Now, I did read a rational, coherent argument on this issue. Jonathan Mosen posted one, and a few blind people on my timeline retweeted it into mine. Again, I found it coherent and rational, placed it all in context and in light of past civil rights issues that have come up and the reactions everybody had to said changes.
Most of what you have as a blind person now was done this way. I know I learned a few things from his write-up, since I myself am not an activist and don't participate in politics beyond my civic duty to vote.
James, I fully agree. I am an NFB member, but I am highly against this
resolution. I fear we will just ruin a relationship with apple that haas benefitted
both parties, the apple company for having such a big buy from the blind
demographic, and the blind demographic itself possibly, but I'm sure as most of
you have said, resolutions like this die probably a quiet death. It'll be interesting
to see how this plays out. What upsets me greatly though, is the NFB is really
pulling people away from it with resolutions like these. It's a great organization
on the whole, they've done a lot of good work and yes, there are radicals
envolved, but that comes with every organization. So it makes me ad to hear
people, now before I finish this, no one on this board has said it which is a good
thing, but to hear people in other places say fuck the NFB and they should ben
in hell and other nonsense childish bullshit like that. Honestly, I think we
wouldn't have some things if it weren't for their advocacy work. When it comes
to this resolution, the NFB has taken it over the top I feel. As James said, it's
really unrealistic.
Blind persons have family, friends, and such that follow them I'd guess.
Now, not that the large portion of the sighted community will know about, or even care about this, but due to the NFB bing a large organization, the parties involved will know.
Apple is a large company.
To the poster that suggest writing your own resolution, I don't believe you understand how this process is done.
Next, one person would have to have a large group, or membership, like the NFB does, before this resolution business would even matter.
Even the NFB will have a hard time making it matter, but they surely can stir the waters and make some major players uncomfortable, or get on the defensive.
That is the problem. Being unreasonable.
Hmm, if you are refering to me in your last post, then yes, I am well aware of how the resolutions process works. As well as I am aware, anyone can submit a resolution to the resolutions committee to be considered at an NFB national convention. If there are people out there who are truely not happy with this resolution, then I highly encourage these people to write and submit their own resolutions to be considered for next year's NFB national convention.
Honestly, I do not fully understand what all the griping and complaining in regards to this resolution is all about. The guidelines for most all products change over time, and I do not understand what is so bad about making guidelines based upon high standards for anyone who happens to use the product. The new President of the NFB wrote a blog poste in regards to this resolution that appears to be rather reasonable to me.
And for those who claim that the sighted do not care or will not benifet from this resolution, how exactly do you know this to be true? How do you know that the inovations from this resolution will not somehow benifet other segments of our population, or even our population as a whole. From what I understand, the common copier machine that is now used in almost all facits of our society today was developed from some of the most earliest developments of creating a piece of technology to convert print into a form that could be used by the blind. Who is to say that some of the technology that will be created as a result of this resolution will not do the same?
You can write, and you can submit. However, the majority of an organization decides on what that organization will voice.
This is the problem, such a large organization, being the voice of the blind unreasonably.
I don't believe anyone here has stated that this resolution will not benefit the sighted, I believe most here think this resolution will cause some of the sighted population, developers, to dig in there heels, due to being pushed unreasonably.
That heell digging will I turn, not benefit us at all.
In this case, we are speaking of Apple.
Crazy Cat, do you not feel Apple has done good work for the blind as to its product line, as to making them as accessible as they can?
I currently do not own any Apple products, so I do not believe I can provide the most honest answer to your question. But when I hear of a young girl who is brought to tears because her ap used for educational purposes is not accessible, then perhaps there might be more that could be done to make more aps accessible to the blind.
There are a lot of ways this can be approached.
Most of them aren't so fun and racy as telling blind people to sit down and shut up and take it.
The most beneficial has been taken by development environments like DreamWeacver. That web authoring tool now warns developers of accessibility problems when they go to save their projects.
There's no reason XCode could not do this.
And for kiddos that get all jumpy at the blind, as Jonathan pointed out, lots of young people who are now benefitting from resolutions in the past:
Development environments give us warnings for all sorts of things. Terrible things like memory usage problems, and some even simpler best practices things that users never see, like code formatting, type definitions not made explicit enough or not explicit, and so on.
So it makes practical, rational, sense to me that Apple could implement a couple things into the next version of XCode - the environment used to develop aps - that would issue certain types of warnings.
And yes, I have had the experience where an app I was using for Coast Guard duties magically became inaccessible overnight.
I'm still unclear as to the resolution process. But from a practical engineering perspective, a couple simple steps taken in theIDE (Integrated development environment) adding warnings could go a long way.
All you who complain about this are benefitting from activity done in the past to deal with serious web accessibility constraints and development environments making that much more fluid. People just like you loudly complained about the entitled blind, while others worked behind the scenes to get this right.
And, who knows? Next resolution you are ready to go after? One that stands to improve the lives of you, me, blinded returning war vets from Iraq, the aging blind? Maybe you can make noise against that and say that veteran is entitled, right from within the newly-made accessible app, whose developer had to think a little less on accessibility because the back-end tools gave a couple significant warnings that developers are already used to handling.
Most developers appreciate these kinds of warnings, even if sometimes they are annoying. Warnings are used for any number of things in development environments.
Anyway ... Back to your formerly scheduled banging away at blind people and supposed entitlement mentalities.
But this isn't a warnings. This is an organization saying
"You haven't done enough, so we're going to sue you if we can."
They are saying this to a company that has made great strides, and is making more daily.
Why couldn't it be stated
"we see your fine work, what is it we can tell you or show you that will help?"
Now if a company refused flat out, then, you sue, but not until.
One of my favorite people Bill Blenton said once.
I know America has the power to come over here and make you do exactly what we tell you.
Now, lets forget about that, and lets sit down and as men of reason work out a solution that will serve us all.
There was no need to carry a big stick, people already knew he had one, and he got the most done as far as getting other leaders to agree, and come to peace.
So do resolutions result in lawsuits? I haven't found any but I don't have access to lawyerly sources. Just the Internet.
From what I've read, resolutions are entirely nonbinding, they are not legal documents or complaints.
The warnings would be what Apple would do in XCode to make one good faith effort regarding third-party developers. Again, it's in a space where developers are getting warnings of all sorts. I admit that I don't know Objective C and have not personally worked in XCode, but if it's anything like any other development environment, warnings and errors are a fact of life. Warnings are suggestions, developers sometimes disregard them for their own reasons. Errors prevent compilation.
And in many development environments, warnings are set at various levels, so that a developer could choose to work with warnings set at a particular level. I can't prove this, but it's just a guess: I'm guessing that anyone submitting code to a walled garden like Apple has to submit past certain types of warnings anyhow, or get an exemption to not do so. NSTL for Microsoft, nobody threw fits about how much companies had to do with Windows Mobile devices 8 years ago.
So from an engineering perspective, issuing certain warnings if a canvas was totally devoid of access layer code could be seen as a positive step, an automated one that Apple doesn't have to spot check.
What is still unclear and hasn't been answered by a legal professional on here yet: Is it possible for a resolution to be at all binding? My short stint of a few years as a contractor, I was familiarized with nonbinding arbitration, and some of that had resolutions drafted. But again, the key word is nonbinding. That means none of it means a thing if taken to any kind of court.
Well-meaning organizations can't simply vote to pass a binding contract. That has to be written and both parties signed, before it is binding. And it can't technically be a suit: That is party X delivering papers to a court who will serve Party Y with a lawsuit. Consumer organizations don't sue.
Consumer Reports reported on Firestone tires when they had a terrible mess back in 2000 or so. But Consumer Reports could not sue. Other people sued. Class actions sued. And they could only sue if they demonstrated actual damages.
So in this case, it would need to be people whose job depended on a certain app being accessible, and Apple as a good faith effort provides over the air updates, also as a good faith effort provides VoiceOver and even assistance in writing an accessibility layer. It seems in a court setting, Apple simply wouldn't have any trouble. But I'm way out in the weeds here, I really am not qualified in legal matters.
Anyway, all someone needs to do for us is prove to us where we can go and look at a definition of these resolutions that could result in actual damages against Apple in the form of a lawsuit. Consumer organizations raise issues all the time. Boating organizations and Yacht clubs can raise objections to new Boating Safety efforts where the Coast Guard no longer accepts certain outdated flotation devices and only considers a certain set of types for certain situations. This stuff happens all the time, and sometimes the communities from which it happens is rather small and niche. But an objection, or a resolution, is an opinion of that community organization only.
I'm prepared to come back here and say I was all wrong. I will do it, if demonstrated how a resolution can result in unlawful or litigious damages to a third party like Apple. I'll also come back and admit where I'm wrong if shown my ignorance on resolutions and what they are and how it works with consumer organizations, or if shown that they do hold up in court.
No, resolutions result in people trying to carry them out.
All a resolution is is a promise to do something, or a statement of intent.
It only becomes a legal matter when the organization acts on it.
First at all, i'm not someone who resides in the states. But i think, there is no right, again, no rights for an organization for the blind to represent me and voicing something like this. Yes, there is no problem with promoting accessibility, no problem at all. But why Apple must single out from say, Google or Microsoft? Is almost like, the punishment for Apple bein too far advance from the rest. How do you feel if your kid, who usually got 90% points mark, call out in front of their peers, who only got 30% points mark at school, and shame him/her by doing too well?
It also makes me wonder, what kind of financial goodies that NFB has been getting from company like Freedom Scientific and Microsoft, compare to say, Apple.
I see this as a fear approach from NFB. Fearing of losing control, and perhaps, having some external pressure from Freedom or Microsoft to push them with such moves as well. Cause, when apple is not accessible, what people use? Jaws, windows. But, when Apple become more and more accessible, people are more than likely not spending $1500 to purchase a screen reader, but spending $1500 to purchase a powerful Mac.
If they were saying the same thing about Microsoft, Google, or any other large company, I'd still feel the same.
Microsoft and Window Eyes, are sort of a team now, so I'd guess Freedom Scientific wouldn't factor in to that.
It is the fact they want to fight with companies, instead of work with them that bothers me.
I think the resolution should be reworded. Secondly, it doesn't seem like the NFB is suing Apple, and it most likely will not, because I think there membership would decrease.
The NFB doesn't legally represent you, I, or anyone else, Joanne. That is all nonfalsifiable fluff that doesn't mean anything.
There are all kinds of consumer organizations who represent their membership, and in some ways may or may not help a larger community at large by their efforts.
I don't see women getting all up in arms claiming the National Organization Of Women doesn't represent them, when they protest Mothers' Day, for instance. I don't see African Americans getting upset and claiming the NAACP doesn't represent them either.
Truth is, an organization speaks for that organization, in theory its members. It doesn't even represent its members individually in legal matters, except on a pro bono or paid basis.
So, if you're not afraid about the National Organization Of Women representing you properly, or if African Americans aren't afraid of the NAACP representing or not representing them, it makes no rational sense for people to jump up and down and shout 'not me!' about the NFB. The NFB represents the NFB, the NAACP represents the NAACP, and the NOW represents the NOW.
I respect what Wayne has been posting on here. But I'm trying to get some of the rest of you to start thinking, rather than just knee-jerk reacting. Start examining these claims, see if they're even provable or falsifiable in nature, see if it isn't maybe just some more emotional rhetoric like maybe those who claim Obama is a Muslim.
You all may have some extremely valid points, but they get lost in gibberish nonsense like "The NFB can't represent me!" Well, of course it doesn't. It's a consumer organization, whose name is the National Federation of the Blind, who has a membership and represents itself.
Similar gibberish like Apple is going to turn its back on the blind, also cannot be proven. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I can totally understand Wayne's Libertarian perspective that a company should operate by itself and that none should force its hand. That's very populoar, and I at one time supported it wholeheartedly. I still do to a point.
So if the NFB is now tasked with carrying out its members wishes, in the form of this resolution, what if they then do go and talk to Apple about this? I'd have to read the terms of the resolution, but if it doesn't say legal action is to be taken, then the resolution could still be right and they could still take the Libertarian free market approach and avoid anything legal altogether.
I could agree with that logic, but here’s why I am jumping up and down.
The blind community only has 2 major organizations.
Next, blind people are thought to belong to them, and not as individuals, like blacks, women, and other larger groups.
Last, when you see a woman on the street, you don’t think she’s going to act or be a specific way, because she’s a woman, but blind people are thought of specifically.
I do understand this resolution will most likely not cause anything to happen, but I will voice my opinion about an organization that speaks for me, even though I don’t belong.
I could apply your logic to your post about Christians. They are not all as you post, now are they?
But, you talk about them, and you have your opinions about them, don’t you?
That's true. And we atheists have to be careful as to which Christian or Muslim or whatever movements are being criticized.
My mother in law is a Methodist and so doesn't hold the popular Evangelical apologetic opinions. In fact, many evangelicals don't believe she would be called a Christian.
But in the broader context, she is one.
So, your point is well taken.
Fine.
*kicks the NFB's knee caps.
There is nothing stated in the resolution about taking any kind of legal action against Apple. Before you voice your opinions opposing the resolution, perhaps you should take some time to actually read it first along with the blog post from the new President of the NFB in regards to this resolution. If there are aps that prevent someone from getting the education or job they deserve, and if they are not able to get anywhere with the ap developers, then perhaps a resolution to sit down and simply discuss this issue with Apple to come up with possible solutions to this problem may not be all that bad. If you believe other companies like Microsoft and Google should have also been a part of this resolution, there is absolutely nothing from preventing you from writing another resolution about this to be considered at next year's NFB national convention.
from what i can recall, on this topic alone, no one mention anything about NFB intention
to sue Apple, until some individual brought it up for some unknown reason. However, i'm
not saying about legal representation, in fact, advocates organizations does not operate in
legal representation. But, organization like NFB operates in what i would call as the blind
collective manor. Just like in a church setting, the church simply thinks they can represent
the mass christians, or some head of a church thinks they can represent the rest of the
christian population that is what is bothering.
I don't have problems with addressing accessibility issue, but i have problem on single one
company out, and pointing finger at that company, while the rest can sit and watch and
laugh at it.
If, Apple punishment from the blind is to demand full access on accessibility across the
platform, what sort of message that send to Amazon, Google, Microsoft and the rest of
the group?
And, yes, it is bothering because, like it or not, NFB do have some power within the blind
population out of the states. IF an organization like NFB can have a negative
representation for the blind, it effects the other blind people from the other countries as
well.
Take Christians as a whole for example. Regardless of what sort of christian are you, what
religion or non religion you are, what the pope says or not will indirectly impact how you
view the christianity as a religion, as a whole.
Leo, all that you say of resolutions is true. they're not binding in and of
themselves. though sometimes based on the resolution, an organization such as
the NFB will take the fight to the legal stage. such as against apple years back,
or against other web sights they've gone after.
what I was worried about, and to an extent with good reason was developers
who develop in the app world getting this introduction to blind people, and the
NFB in particular. some have walked away less than impressed, while others like
the developer of instapaper have expanded the topic of conversation by
explaining what they do to make things accessible. Has this resolution impacted
us negatively in some ways, yes.
But considering the NFB is backpettling a bit, I think they're seeing what many
of us did from the start.
an extremist approach doesn't work.
Oh, and random thought, but google was one of the many convention sponcers.
They also gave nexus 7 tablets to the scholarship winners. So from that aspect,
the NFB is an organization like any other.
It doesn't make sense for them to shit where they eat.
Google knows how to deal baby. Smile.
Let's not forget that we are talking about the same organization that tried to introduce legislation to require that paper money be made accessible to us only to later back away from it on the grounds that it isolated the blind. This is also the same organizationthat blew allthat time and money developing a supposed blind drivable car when they didn't actually intend for it to hit the roads.