Actually, you'd be surprised how receptive both IT departments and your management are to this sort of thing.
At least where I work which is a medium sized company of about 500 employees or so there was no resistance at all. We already did have a relationship with Apple but when I pointed out how accessibility was included and universal access was part of apple's thinking they jumped on it. COuld be a california mind set but I think companies are more responsive than you might think. On Sep 3, 2010, at 11:05 PM, Rich Ring wrote: > Many of us have to use Windows and Windows screen readers at work. It is not > as if one can march into the bosses office and say, "We need to switch to > the Mac, because Apple's philosophy concerning universal access is the way > to go!" No, unfortunately, this is not the way things work. I do not find > Word to be difficult to use at all, and if I did, I would be hard pressed to > keep my job. Yes, I have a Mac, and I'm downloading videos with it as we > speak, but you can't throw out the baby with the bath water unless you > happen to be either self employed or unemployed. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "carlene knight" <carlenefor...@gmail.com> > To: <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 12:33 PM > Subject: Re: MS Word's lack of access with VO > > > Hi: > > I use Word at work and I can tell you that it has some bugs like trying to > overlap things I need to see that I find downright annoying. I wouldn't > want TextEdit to do that, nor would I want the Mac OS and windows platforms > to become too intermingled or we would just be inherrriting the problems > that we are trying to avoid by switching to OS10 in the first place. Just > my thoughts. > > > On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:10 AM, Sarah Alawami wrote: > >> I contacted MS about this on there feedback forum in 2007 but I have since >> lost the link and there have been no results as far as I'm aware. I don't >> use word anymore on windows or mac so I would not be able to say yes or >> no that it is or is not accessible. >> Sarah Alawami >> MSN: marri...@gmail.com >> aim: marri...@gmail.com: >> >> website: http://music.marrie.org >> youtube: http://youtube.com/marrie125 >> Podcast: http://marrie.podbean.com >> Mobile site for podcast: http://marrie.podbean.com/mobile/ >> >> On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:03 AM, cathyk wrote: >> >>> Dear List, >>> I've been struck by how willing we are to accept the fact that VO >>> doesn't work natively with MS Word. At one level all the work-arounds >>> show just how flexible, enterprising, and creative we are; every >>> employer should be eager to hire anyone with such spark and, yes, >>> ability. But am I the only one who fluctuates between sadness and >>> outright anger that a program like MS Word, so standard in every >>> single thing related to word processing, isn't accessible from the get- >>> go? Every work-around means time and energy taken away from the main >>> task at hand, whatever it is we're hoping to do. Each conversion on >>> its own is just a few seconds here and there. But these seconds add >>> up, plus they leave us open to unnecessary mistakes, which reflect >>> badly on our capabilities. >>> >>> I know some people on this list have been trying to change this. I >>> propose we band together, and really push for this to happen >>> collectively. We can certainly make it more public that despite all >>> the claims for accessibility, VO doesn't work with a MAJOR program. I >>> frankly don't care whether the fault lies with Apple or Microsoft - >>> they need to be made to play together, just as they surely have on >>> other matters. As an added incentive, I know that lots more sighted >>> people are warming to the idea of having long documents read to them, >>> which means that this improvement would have broader benefits and >>> could even be a marketing tool for Apple to tout its screen reader as >>> an interesting technology for all. >>> >>> Please excuse this rant, but it's been building up; I just can't >>> understand why we're so willing to accept the status quo when the >>> thing that excited so many of us about the Mac was finally being part >>> of mainstream technology. >>> >>> In solidarity, >>> cathyk >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MacVisionaries" group. >> To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
