W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: SPAM(6.0) Re: SPAM(6.0) Re: SPAM(6.0) Re: OFF TOPIC - Shame on Google

From: Joachim Andersson <joachim.andersson@etu.se>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:40:52 +0200
Message-ID: <a92e08980809050540s77552482re65872e1bf6b24a2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Accessys@smart.net" <accessys@smart.net>
Cc: "Harry Loots" <harry.loots@ieee.org>, "James Craig" <jcraig@apple.com>, "John Foliot" <foliot@wats.ca>, "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "wai-xtech@w3.org WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, webaim-forum@list.webaim.org
I see your point. Well, I guess as long as it's lawsuits and sit ins, it may
have a point. But my experience is that "wacking people on the head"
(meaning not focusing on the issue, but just showing anger) is very common.
I think this is sad, as many goals could be reached if we cooperate.
For example, I've educated blind people on web accessibility. But as I am
not blind myself I need to be very careful doing that. I need to listen, to
learn how their reality works, in order to provide them with correct
information, in a way accessible to them. I am truly amazed about the ideas
I've learned from these people. I have learned these things because I have
taken the time to listen, and they have let me in to see things their way.
This is a way of cooperating that really works. I just wonder how we get the
world to realize this.

Any ideas are truly welcome!

Joachim Andersson

2008/9/4 Accessys@smart.net <accessys@smart.net>

>
> there's an old story here about the man who had a mule that would work
> from sun up to sun down, and never balk, followed all the instructions
> of the farmer and this amazed the reporter who was sent out to check
> on this. so he followed the farmer. and the next morning the farmer
> went out to hook up the mule to the plow and he picked up a big board
> and whacked the mules head a few times, then hooked up the plow and
> went out and had a productive day.
>
> the reporter asked why he hit the mule, and the old farmer just said.
> it was to get his attention!!
>
> sometimes lawsuits and sit ins etc are just needed to get thier
> attention.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Joachim Andersson wrote:
>
> > If someone hit me in the face I would think twice about making an effort
> to
> > help him, wouldn't you? I'm from Sweden. The country where everyone's
> > complaining, noone's doing anything about things and the complaints
> lining
> > up.
> > In my line of work I meet many people with disabilities of all kinds, who
> > are very competent and they're doing a great job working with web
> > accessibility and solutions to help others. But these people are those
> that
> > don't march and such. They have found other, more effective ways of
> reaching
> > their goals.
> >
> > I realize the importance of marching and so on, but 1975 is another time
> > than 2008. In Sweden, Canada and the United States there are laws on how
> > accessibility should be a part of development. In Canada and the United
> > States there is Section 508, demanding that public service web content
> > should conform to WAI recommendations and in Sweden we have laws pointing
> at
> > UN resolutions on human rights, including information on every persons
> right
> > to access and understand information. And there is progress, wouldn't you
> > say?
> >
> > I ask myself, if it's possible to get Swedish authorities to make these
> > changes, is it not possible to make companies like those mentioned to do
> the
> > same? After all, they all talk about sales and market share. The largest
> > customer to Microsoft in Sweden is without a doubt public sector
> (including
> > schools, hospitals, authorities and many more). The Swedish law is about
> to
> > change. There will be higher standards, more demands on authorities
> > buying IT solutions in the future. They will not be allowed to chose a
> > solution that does not provide any and all citizens to work in that
> > environment, and to understand the outcome of it. So, in a way one could
> say
> > that Microsoft will not be selling anything to Swedish authorities if
> they
> > do not take action in both Windows, Office, IE8 and many other
> applications.
> > So what are the alternatives, you might ask. Well, Linux Ubuntu is
> climbing
> > so to speak. In this operating system there are built-in screen readers,
> > magnifying software and much more. Well, there are such programs in
> Windows
> > too, but they do not give the users what they really need. It's more of
> > "showing that they care" than good functionality. Ubuntu also has Mozilla
> > Firefox built in, which is one of the web browsers trying to conform to
> W3C
> > standards. There is still much to ask from an alternative like this, but
> > with these leagal changes in Sweden this will surely be an alternative.
> >
> > Again, I think providing these giant companies with information on how to
> > solve a problem is the right way to do it. If we do that often enough,
> they
> > will eventually have to answer, or am I wrong?
> >
> > In fact, the first time I contacted Google I emediately got an answer
> from
> > Ian Hickson, telling me that they were going to look in to it. They
> haven't
> > reached that goal yet, but I am sure they're working on it. Ian Hickson
> is
> > also part of W3C HTML 5 Working Group, so conformance to web standards is
> > most certainly something he has in mind.
> >
> > Never the less, I understand the need for people to march and sue, to
> make a
> > difference. It truely  works wonders in the United States. Globally I
> think
> > we have to find other ways though.
> >
> > Joachim Andersson
> >
> > 2008/9/4 Accessys@smart.net <accessys@smart.net>
> >
> > >
> > > many disability groups follow the carrot and stick approach, people
> > > ofcolor asked to ride nicely for many years, and got nowhere so they
> > > bocotted and marched and sued and many other things before they got
> > > anywhere.
> > >
> > > people with disabilities including wheelchair users were required to
> > > be served by public  transit as early as 1975, but there was little if
> > > any service, so folks in wheelchairs sued and sat in front of buses
> > > and chained themselves to buses etc. finally in 1990 the ADA  was
> > > passed that included among other things the requirement to make buses
> > > accessible, and people said "you could have asked nicely" they did for
> > > 15 years and kept getting told next year,  now there is transit. how
> > > long has there been an ADA, how long has there been a WWW, this should
> > > be a non issue except for the attitude of "they don't matter" and
> > > we'll get a "roundtuit"  unless there is presure and laws nothing
> > > seemms to ever happen in the USA.
> > >  Was in Japan a few years ago and most things were accessible or
> > > getting there, I asked to see a copy of  their law and they looked at
> > > me funny. they had standards on how to do it, but at the time no law
> > > requiring it (I believe there is now an actual law) However while the
> > > entire country was becoming accessible it was still rare to see a
> > > person with a disability out using the stuff. again culture not law.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Joachim Andersson wrote:
> > >
> > > > I couldn't agree with you more Bob! Doing what I do, I always end up
> > > > promoting web standards as something that we must conform to, not
> > > something
> > > > we can chose to follow to be kind to a small amount of people with
> > > special
> > > > needs.
> > > > As you point out, the other companies I mention are under preasure.
> But
> > > the
> > > > fact remains. There is no point in building up anger over something
> in a
> > > > forum like this, if in this case Google are not part of the
> discussion. I
> > > > totally agree that Google, Microsoft, Adobe and many others are to
> take
> > > this
> > > > seriously, and I'm not sure that they do. When talking to Google
> staff I
> > > > have noticed that the interest for W3C conformance is not a primary
> > > topic.
> > > > Conformance to WCAG was not even an issue at the time. It is
> reasonable
> > > to
> > > > say that it's correct to point out that these services and
> applications
> > > need
> > > > to be accessible, but I find this to be the wrong way of doing it.
> > > >
> > > > In my work with web accessibility I have noticed that people with
> > > > disabilities often take aim at some company and hit them with a
> sledge
> > > > hammer. It could be a long list of names and another list of demands.
> > > This
> > > > has never been an effective way of reaching good results. A much
> better
> > > way
> > > > is to search for a way of cooperating. What can we do to help Google
> > > become
> > > > accessible to all? What can we do to help Microsoft build IE8
> according
> > > to
> > > > W3C standards? What can we do to help Adobe get Flash to work with
> screen
> > > > readers?
> > > >
> > > > I remember an old american president saying "Ask not what your
> country
> > > could
> > > > do for you, ask what you can do for your country". This is more of a
> way
> > > to
> > > > solve the problem as I see it. I am sure there are hundreds if not
> > > thousands
> > > > of clever minds here with a solution in mind. We need to find the
> > > solution
> > > > and provide it to those who need it (Google, Microsoft, Adobe and
> many
> > > > others). This way we can do something good for the Internet and its
> > > future.
> > > >
> > > > Joachim Andersson
> > > >
> > > > 2008/9/4 Accessys@smart.net <accessys@smart.net>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Google is the current target I guess or maybe it just came to the
> > > > > fore. but be assured that MS and Adobe are also under significant
> > > > > presure.
> > > > >
> > > > > allowing one company to flaunt the standards of the W3C because
> they
> > > > > are "big" totally defeats the purpose of the concept of
> > > > > standardization. and a few years of this and there will not be a
> WWW
> > > > > but a Google web and a MS web and an Adobe web etc ad nauseum.  it
> > > > > would be the end of the web as we know it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Joachim Andersson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I find this interesting, due to earlier discussions with Google
> staff
> > > on
> > > > > web
> > > > > > accessibility. Looking at Google development there are many
> > > applications
> > > > > > that do not follow W3C recommendations on web accessibility. For
> > > example,
> > > > > > Gmail, Google Earth, Google Docs and so on.
> > > > > > But one needs to look at why. Google is one of the largest
> companies
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > world. Making a small web application accessible to all is one
> thing.
> > > > > Making
> > > > > > all Google applications accessible to all, now that is a whole
> > > different
> > > > > > deal. I am sure Google do their best to make it possible for
> people
> > > to
> > > > > use
> > > > > > their applications/services. It would be rather strange if they
> > > weren't,
> > > > > > wouldn't you say?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the other hand, Google seems to be in the line of fire here,
> and
> > > none
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the other giants are even mentioned. Are we to interpret this as
> a
> > > sign
> > > > > of
> > > > > > Microsoft, Adobe and other giants to be better at this job? I'd
> say
> > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > > would be a mistake. Many companies are developing applications
> that
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > at all accessible for all users. Both Microsoft and Adobe are
> quite
> > > good
> > > > > > examples. But I do not see the point in picking on these
> companies.
> > > > > Wouldn't
> > > > > > it be a better idea to contact them suggesting a solution?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joachim Andersson
> > > > > > Web Accessibility Specialist
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2008/9/3 Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was off topic, I just think it was
> nitpicking on
> > > a
> > > > > > > > detail. While I do admit that I reacted more strongly because
> I
> > > > > > > > initially thought you were referring to the product rather
> than
> > > the
> > > > > > > > marketing piece, I stand by my defense that this is likely
> one
> > > > > > > > person's mistake, instead of something that should bring
> shame on
> > > > > > > > Google as a whole. There is other documentation after all,
> and
> > > > > > > > yesterday I didn't even find the comic book with a search.
> The
> > > > > > > > results  for "Google Chrome" came up with the download info
> and
> > > text
> > > > > > > >  documentation pages.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > whether nitpicking, off-topic whatever...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When was Google elevated to status of beyond reproach?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it was Microsoft being criticised would you have defended
> them
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > manner?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I work for a large corporate, and i can assure you that errors
> like
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > not reside with one person only. It was careless, and that's
> the
> > > end of
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Harry
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
> > > > > > >  We do not inherit the Earth from our Parents-
> > > > > > >  We are simply Borrowing it from our Children!
> > > > > > > ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > > > > > From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
> > > > > > > To: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:46:33 -0700
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC - Shame on Google
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John Foliot wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > the fact remains that sometime prior to
> > > > > > > > > today *somebody* should have said "...what about text
> > > equivalents
> > > > > > > > > for these
> > > > > > > > > images?"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agreed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This time is was not meant to be either - it was a pure
> play
> > > "shame
> > > > > > > > > on you"
> > > > > > > > > statement, which is one of the reasons why I also labeled
> the
> > > > > > > > > posting as OFF
> > > > > > > > > TOPIC.  I was mad, sad and frustrated, and said so to a
> > > community
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > shares in a common goal of improved web accessibility - it
> was
> > > not
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > technical question or statement, and was not meant to be -
> it
> > > was
> > > > > > > > > very much
> > > > > > > > > off topic.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think it was off topic, I just think it was
> nitpicking on
> > > a
> > > > > > > > detail. While I do admit that I reacted more strongly because
> I
> > > > > > > > initially thought you were referring to the product rather
> than
> > > the
> > > > > > > > marketing piece, I stand by my defense that this is likely
> one
> > > > > > > > person's mistake, instead of something that should bring
> shame on
> > > > > > > > Google as a whole. There is other documentation after all,
> and
> > > > > > > > yesterday I didn't even find the comic book with a search.
> The
> > > > > > > > results  for "Google Chrome" came up with the download info
> and
> > > text
> > > > > > > >  documentation pages.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, Google dropped the ball in a very big way here, and if
> my
> > > > > > > > > commentary
> > > > > > > > > comes across as too strident or "nit-picky" then I am
> sorry,
> > > but
> > > > > > > > > Google (the
> > > > > > > > > corporate entity) deserves to be shamed here. You mention
> that
> > > I
> > > > > > > > > know a
> > > > > > > > > number of people at Google who know and care about
> > > accessibility,
> > > > > > > > > but this
> > > > > > > > > gaff transcends individuals and speaks to a corporate
> culture,
> > > not
> > > > > > > > > only at
> > > > > > > > > Google, but at many large organizations - it's lip-service
> to
> > > > > > > > > accessibility
> > > > > > > > > and disabled rights - how else could something this
> important
> > > be so
> > > > > > > > > ignored
> > > > > > > > > when push comes to shove?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Corporate culture is still determined by individuals. I
> struggle
> > > > > > > > with  the same kind of apathy, and in my experience, shaming
> > > tactics
> > > > > > > > make  people recoil into a defensive stance rather than open
> up
> > > to
> > > > > > > > the  possibility of needed and worthwhile change. When
> companies
> > > are
> > > > > > > > on the  defensive from external attacks, it undermines the
> > > efforts
> > > > > > > > of  individuals attempting to persuade from the inside.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's easy to forget how inaccessible (as a whole) Google was
> just
> > > > > > > > four  or five years ago. The reason it has come so far is not
> > > > > > > > because of  external shaming, but because of the hard work of
> > > people
> > > > > > > > on the inside.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Given that Google probably has the original script supplied
> to
> > > > > Scott
> > > > > > > > > McCloud, we can only surmise that it would have taken a
> Google
> > > web
> > > > > > > > > developer
> > > > > > > > > even less time to do what Simon did.  They didn't, and for
> that
> > > I
> > > > > > > > > cry "For
> > > > > > > > > shame!"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll concede that point, and perhaps this time the shame
> worked.
> > > > > > > > Jonathan Chetwynd just mentioned, "Google's already looking
> into
> > > > > > > > improving the accessibility of the web version of the comic."
> I
> > > > > > > > would,  however, encourage you to use shame as a last resort;
> > > used
> > > > > > > > too often,  it will its effectiveness.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > James
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PS. Removed the GAWDS list from the CC because I'm no longer
> a
> > > > > > > > member  and it was bouncing.
> > > > > > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > end
> > > > >
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > occasionally a true patriot must defend his country from its'
> > > government
> > > > >
> > >
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary
> > > > > safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety",    Benjamin Franklin
> > > > > -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> -
> > > -
> > > > >   ASCII Ribbon Campaign. . . . . . . . . . . . accessBob
> > > > >   .NO HTML/PDF/RTF/MIME in e-mail. . . . . . .
> > > accessys@smartnospam.net
> > > > >   .NO MSWord docs in e-mail . . . .. . . . . . Access Systems,
> > > engineers
> > > > >   .NO attachments in e-mail, .*LINUX powered*. access is a civil
> right
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
> > > > > THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
> > > > > privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity
> named
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > end
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > occasionally a true patriot must defend his country from its'
> government
> > >
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> > > safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety",    Benjamin Franklin
> > > -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> -
> > >   ASCII Ribbon Campaign. . . . . . . . . . . . accessBob
> > >   .NO HTML/PDF/RTF/MIME in e-mail. . . . . . .
> accessys@smartnospam.net
> > >   .NO MSWord docs in e-mail . . . .. . . . . . Access Systems,
> engineers
> > >   .NO attachments in e-mail, .*LINUX powered*. access is a civil right
> > >
> > >
> *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
> > > THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
> > > privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> -
> end
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> occasionally a true patriot must defend his country from its' government
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety",    Benjamin Franklin
> -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
>   ASCII Ribbon Campaign. . . . . . . . . . . . accessBob
>   .NO HTML/PDF/RTF/MIME in e-mail. . . . . . . accessys@smartnospam.net
>   .NO MSWord docs in e-mail . . . .. . . . . . Access Systems, engineers
>   .NO attachments in e-mail, .*LINUX powered*. access is a civil right
>
> *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
> THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
> privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 September 2008 12:41:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:28 GMT