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

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
>
>