Ricardo,
I can think of two.
There is a special category in all social security administration
payments specifically for the blind...but the way it is defined is not
especially positive.
granted there is the assumption that providing something in braille works
for everyone too, never mind less than ten percent of those experiencing
blindness read it.
A blindness advocate sent the below to me a few years back. it is
important. I am still laughing at the suggestion that the Ada with all
its logistical delays and judicial walls mayhem and years of poor
movement is the place to turn.
I can count three banks so far that claim privacy laws and homeland
security regulations overrule the Ada...so they need not make their
website accessible.
things are better in the UK because they like much of
the rest of the world use the United Nations treaty on the rights for people with
disabilities... Access is a human right, end of discussion.
it is never a question of if you must provide access, it is how and how
fast. far more
flexible dictionary definition in theory and far faster a mechanisms
structure for getting things done.
Not the rule of law in the states because...the Ada will fix everything.
the ebook situation proves how correct that is to be sure.
and in most cases for United Nations ratified countries, you are not working with
the sort of thinking like that
at social security. you are blind you have no value, so let's keep you on
public assistance for life, or we cover your rent, and you cannot do
anything so why do you want a computer etc.
Here is my friends article.
Commentary
Time to Rethink Our Own Declarations of Independence
By William Loughborough
For the first few years of our lives, all of us are totally dependent
on others for survival. Then, after discovering that we can survive
without a full-time personal attendant -- usually "Mommy" -- we think
that we are fully independent.
There used to be a widespread notion of an individual's absolute
independence from everyone and everything. It was -- sometimes
grudgingly -- acknowledged that we were dependent on others for many
things, but there was still the feeling that we were somehow
independent of being beholden to everybody else for essentially
everything.
No one seriously considers him or herself, in that sense,
"independent"
any longer. Every time there is a need for help, our mutual
dependence
is emphasized, whether it is because we need someone to keep the
power
grid running or to turn us over in bed to avoid pressure sores.
Somehow, the latter sort of assistance is regarded widely as a
"special
accommodation" because, after all, the overwhelming majority of us
can turn over by ourselves.
The truth is, we never get over needing special accommodation.
Whether
it is because of others growing our food or keeping our air and water
safe or teaching us how to stay alive, we are all highly
interdependent. We are all in this together and, luckily, we are
dependent on one another.
In point of fact, the entire global electrical distribution system is
a special accommodation for those individuals who, unlike blind people,
cannot read in the dark and thus have a "special need" for manmade
illumination. But blind people are taxed with furnishing this special
accommodation that they have no special need for. Similarly, there
are billions of chairs, mostly seldom used, wherever people gather in
groups, but people who bring their own rolling chairs are taxed to
provide this seating service for those who failed to furnish their
own chairs.
Of course, most of society sees it the other way around, but the fact
is that if everybody learned to read Braille and used wheelchairs it
would be a huge savings for society. Because we have for so long
considered "difference" as a sort of punishable inferiority, we think
those who fit certain categories (for example, the lame, halt or
blind)
are being given undeserved entitlements while those who makes the
rules
are considered automatically eligible for their own ease and comfort.
Lighting is "affordable," but environmental accessibility for certain
functionally diverse people is not. We never ask how we can afford
aircraft carriers but always question housing vouchers for poor
people
who must sleep in doorways.
For a long time, people with different levels of functionality have
been labeled as having special needs that create a burden on society.
They are put into labeled groups and often discriminated against --
sometimes very substantially -- just for being different, despite the
fact that their functional diversity is what makes it possible for
humanity to survive and evolve.
Diversity is essential to the selection process necessary to prevent
our species from going the way of all the others that became too
specialized to survive in an ever-changing world.
So rather than think of individuals as "independent," we should
consider ourselves "interdependent" and, most important, not be put
into some arbitrary category and relegated to the fringes of society.
It is not popular to say "we are all disabled," but there can be no
argument that each of us has his own particular talents and
shortcomings. This diversity should be celebrated rather than
punished.
A policy of "separate but equal" doesn't just affect those who are
put
into some "disability box," but also the society that puts them there
to suffer often terrible consequences. There is no longer any
question
that accessibility to what is offered by our culture is a basic human
right, equal to any others.
By continuing to accept mainstream views of disability, we deny the
undeniable: Compared to whoever is the best in a certain field, we
are
all disabled, unless we can compose as well as Mozart did at age 10,
or
putt as accurately as Tiger Woods, for example.
A speech impediment caused by cerebral palsy is not a reason to be
denied the essentials of education or, worse, to be incarcerated in a
setting that has been shown to lead to abuse, neglect or even death.
A
person who has no means of using the mouse on a computer should not
be
denied access to the World Wide Web.
Another downside to continuing to speak of ourselves as disabled is
that it puts us in the position of essentially "playing the pity
card"
to reach our goals. What we're saying is that, if not for our
disability, we are just like everyone else. Why draw attention to our
differences?
The way in which each of us is like everyone else is that we are
different. That is important for the survival of the species. The
world
needs, for example, biographical-, neurological- and mobility-diverse
people to help our species evolve.
So, how are we to assert our independence? Probably by realizing just
how dependent we are - and how closely related. Accessibility should
be
for everyone, everywhere, always.
The "diversity model" must replace the "medical model" and the
"social
model." What should be "fixed" is not our differences, but society's
reluctance to recognize our importance to cultural evolution. It's
not
the wheelchair that disables us, it's the stairs.
William Loughborough has come to the above conclusions because of his
association with Javier Roma?ach of Madrid, Spain, from whose book
(in Spanish) "El Modelo de la Diversidad" this article is derived. A
more "academic" distillation can be found at
http://www.boobam.org/Innecesarios.htm.
__________________________________________________________
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Ricardo Walker wrote:
Hi,
Keep in mind, fair doesn't always mean equal. I'm sure if we looked hard
enough, we can find some services offered exclusively to those who are visually
impaired and or blind.
Ricardo Walker
rica...@appletothecore.info
Twitter:@apple2thecore
www.appletothecore.info
On Apr 28, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Jenny Keller <jlperd...@gmail.com> wrote:
In my opinion, accessible movies, TV shows, appliances, etc, should fall under
the ADA.
Not to be politically incorrect here, but if people in wheelchairs can get them
for free and most places are made to be accessible for them, and the deaf get
closed captioning for almost every TV show and eventually DVD, and TTY phones
and free relay services, then why isn't it mandatory that we get the same
consideration.
The fact is, we don't, and in my opinion, if we have to go to other sources to
get it because this wonderful country of ours, who makes other disabilities
have accessible products and services as mandatory, then we have do do it until
we get our fair shake.
It's fairness to all, or it shouldn't be for any.
Go red, white, and blue:(
Jenny
On Apr 28, 2012, at 1:37 PM, Christine Grassman wrote:
Arguably, anything beyond the things required for daily living is a luxury.
Plenty of people do not have computers or TV's. I personally have found a
greater appreciation for movies and television shows when they are described,
and it is exceedingly frustrating when one cannot watch a foreign film or
dialogue-poor show. The level of audio description in the UK versus what is
available in the U.S. is astounding -- in fact, the bulk of the audio
description is done in Great Britain. I remember not going to action movies
with peers when I was younger, or not being invited, because no one wanted to
describe them to me. I remember people becoming annoyed when my mother quietly
described what was going on in a movie.
Even important information on news broadcasts is flashed across screens. If it is possible to
accommodate the print-disabled and visually impaired in one country, it is possible in another. We
should not have to pick and choose among "luxuries" -- Shopping for appliances is
another nightmare; I am tired of having to get someone to go over touch screens and controls with
me so that I can memorize, mark controls, or make charts so that I can use something for which I
paid full price. Even companies which advertise that they have "accessible manuals"
either do not actually provide them or only provide them in shorter, slimmed-down versions.
If something is accessible to people who want it and can afford it, it should
be accessible to all. Not only is their a fairness component, but a social
component: culturally, experientially, we are better integrated into the social
fabric of our societies when we have independent, real-world access to the
things our peers take for granted.
Christine
show
On Apr 28, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Eugenia Firth wrote:
Hi guys.
I love audio description as much as any blind person could. Before you couldn't
get them, I bought several movies on those tapes, movies I wanted to watch
again. However, and maybe I'm showing my age here, but I consider audio
description to be a luxury for us. I watched movies and TV just fine before we
got it.
Computer accessibility, however, including the Internet's accessibility, has
become an increasingly frustrating necessity. I don't have statistics to back
up my opinion, but I think we delude ourselves if we think we are a
money-making proposition. Poor Apple has been braver than everybody else by
jumping into the quicksand of accessibility. If the good folks in Cupertino are
sorry they they made the plunge, they are being smart enough to be quiet about
it. I think they will be better off than everyone else in that regard
eventually, especially when the feds get involved in evaluating accessibility
the education arena. At least Apple will have no trouble, unlike others,
proving that the iPad, etc. is accessible to blind and other disabled students.
A blind friend of mine was asking me about these new vending machines that
touch screens. He was asking if there was an iPhone app to control those things
because he's concerned that he won't even able to get a cold drink without
extra help otherwise. As it is, at least at his work, he can count the buttons.
I have another blind friend whose electric oven went out, and she a terrible
time finding an accessible one. My microwave is still partially inaccessible
since my husband has yet to put labels onto that mostly flat screen. When I go
to Louisville this summer, I can just about guarantee that I can't
independently watch TV, unless you guys can tell me of an iPhone app that will
for sure work with the hotel's TV.
I could go on and on giving examples. Without getting political, both blindness
organizations have written resolutions for positive and/or negative motivators
for some of these folks that are busy making our lives more and ore
inaccessible. We lost the battle of the accessibility of curbing in our U.S.
cities for blind folks, making our mobility more difficult. We can't afford to
lose the computer accessibility thing.
Regards,
Gigi
Eugenia Firth
gigifi...@sbcglobal.net
On Apr 28, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Lewis Alexander wrote:
not getting it just yet, figuring out finances, etc so should have it end of
may. snowed under at the mo with a machine restoration. a vintage industrial
machine I'm completely rebuilding ready for use. so today's been spray work and
drying. tomorow's the same.
then after that it's assembly work.
lew
On 28 Apr 2012, at 13:50, Donna Goodin wrote:
Hi Lew,
congrats on your iPad. they really are cool devices. My husband has one, and
I thought long and hard about getting one too. But eventually I decided that
since I didn't need the larger screen, that the iPhone could do everything I
needed, so it didn't make sense to duplicate devices. I confess, though, I'm
envious. Every once in a while I look at my husband's iPad and get a sudden
craving for coolaide. lol
Cheers,
Donna
On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Lewis Alexander wrote:
nice one donna, I fully agree.
the iPad is a product which can truly change the lives of blind users
throughout the world. I'm in the process of buying an iPad as it's needed for
work both in the workshop and on site as a rep for a company, so the online
catalogue needs to be available and accessible to me all the time, the iPad for
me feels absolutely amazing, after road testing the new model, I've fallen in
love with it. I don't need a wife, just an iPad lol
lew
On 28 Apr 2012, at 13:39, Donna Goodin wrote:
Hi Christine,
I'm perplexed. How do you see the push to have iPads in classrooms as
something that leaves the blind/VI student out? If anything, I see that as
something that better enables us to participate, thanks to the fact that Apple
has made the iPad a fully accessible device.
Best,
Donna
On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:36 AM, Christine Grassman wrote:
With all due respect, Scott, laws which disparately impact certain groups or
classes of people have been flouted through civil disobedience since the
introduction of legal systems, e.g., civil rights, disability rights,
employment rights, etc. The United States might not exist were it not for
disobeying laws.
I am an attorney, and it continues to amaze me how slowly the U.S. is moving to
accommodate disability, and how snail-paced the societal shift in attitudes toward us has
been. and it seems that whenever a company like Apple makes great strides in
accommodating blindness off the shelf, plenty of other technologies come along and do not
bother to incorporate us into their equation. So many educational apps, for example, are
not accessible, though they could be, and given the push now to have iPads in classrooms,
once again blind, visually impaired, and otherwise print-disabled students will be left
out. Apple moves us two steps forward, and "progress" (for others) moves us
three steps back. I should be able to turn on a television, flip a switch, or turn on a
transmitter, and get descriptions. I should be able to access books on the Nook or the
Kindle, not just iBooks. I cannot express, and I am sure others here agree, the happiness
I feel when a new release or best-selling publication is available on iBooks.
(Incidentally, if a book is available on iBooks and on bookshare.org, I
purchase the book. Yet, I have lost quite a lot of money as a published author
-- as soon as my book was published, I sent a copy to bookshare.org; it was
more important to me to have it available at the same time to the blind and
print-disabled. The Authors Guild apparently does not care about such access,
despite the fact that they would actually get money from us.)
I would happily go to the movies more and happily purchase audio-described
movies through iTunes if they were available. Even movies which are released
with audio description are not always sold through movie resellers -- goodness
knows I have tried. To date, I have only located The Incredible Hulk, from
2008, which I purchased for my son.
Even Apple could do more. It could strengthen its requirements for apps. It has
provided developers with the means to make their apps VoiceOver accessible, and
there are plenty of apps out there which could be so. Only apps that are visual
by their very nature should be exempted. But, as usual, profit trumps people,
despite the fact that the disabled community rewards those who remember us with
our business.
Frankly, I would prefer to purchase the audio-described movies and shows I
download from the vault, so that I could watch them with sighted friends and
family. I wish I could show a film to a class and not have to ask my para or a
student to tell me what is going on. The entertainment industry gets plenty of
my money. If they want more, they should remember that I deserve to be able to
access their material independently. OK. Topic over. Those of you who wish to
continue this off-list are welcome; I've appreciated your correspondence thus
far.
Christine
On Apr 28, 2012, at 6:13 AM, Scott Howell wrote:
I am sure commenting on this only adds fuel to the fire, but I did want to
point out that as I recall the person that is responsible for this movie vault
thing also runs a legit company. I would find it difficult to believe that he
has not checked into this because no one would want to put their business
assets at risk. If there truly is an investigation then prove it. I get pretty
annoyed when people claim something, but cannot or do not provide any reference
to back those claims. And for the record I do not condone pirating of any kind
and believe that regardless of accessibility issues even blind people must
follow the laws.
On Apr 27, 2012, at 10:51 PM, Christine Grassman wrote:
Naturally, if the moderator deems this discussion verboten, I will refrain
further, but I would feel remiss not to point out the following for
consideration:
1. As of several hours ago, there was nothing on the FBI's official web site
regarding an investigation, nor were there any press releases or other
comparable references to an investigation of the movie vault. A reference would
be appreciated; mere speculation or rumor could be deemed libelous.
2. The problem industries have with illegal file-sharing is loss of revenue.
Since, at least in the United States, there is virtually no way to purchase
audio-described movies or television shows, the industry is not being cheated
of revenue.
3. The files are straight audio, with no ability, for example, to "watch" with
sighted peers while having the benefit of the audio description. This is not at all
remotely similar to downloading a film for the family to watch. That being said, the vast
majority of the sighted community does this with impunity, even though many of the shows
and movies they download can be seen for free when they are are shown on television. We,
on the other hand, cannot even enjoy full access to these shows when they *are* on
television. Either they are not audio-described at all, or it is not easy to turn on the
secondary audio channel, or a particular station only carries foreign language broadcasts
on the SAC rather than audio description. Comparing access to audio-described movies and
shows in mp3 format to the type of file-sharing which goes on 24/7 on hundreds and
thousands of sites is a stretch.
4. If the government and/or the involved industries wish to do something about
the existence of resources like the movie vault, the former should mandate, and
the latter should provide a market from which we can obtain these items. I have
been able to watch a non-described movie with others after listening to an mp3
file and tell another blind person what is going on thanks to that previous
experience. My two blind children have been able to enjoy fare which their
peers enjoyed months or years ago. Until the entertainment industry levels the
playing field, I will utilize resources like the movie vault with the same
guiltless pleasure I take in bookshare.org (and, by the way, it is possible to
download books from bookshare.org which are available commercially.) We cannot
use the Kindle as others do. WE cannot use the Nook. We are severely limited
in what we can access independently when it comes to entertainment, and we must
even still fight for access to education at every level, despite technological
advances. Holding us to the same standards as the vast majority of illegal
file-sharers is legally, morally, and economically inequitable.
Christine
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MacVisionaries" group.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@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 macvisionaries@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 macvisionaries@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 macvisionaries@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 macvisionaries@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 macvisionaries@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 macvisionaries@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 macvisionaries@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 macvisionaries@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 macvisionaries@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 macvisionaries@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 macvisionaries@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.
