Comments on: NFB Makes a Deal with Amazon

By: Deals & Discounts

Deals & Discounts — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:51:48 +0000

Everything is possible nowadays and we shouldn’t be afraid to use the technology that serves our needs as it should be, but of course we should not forget that technology does not rule our lives.

By: didier_quelle

didier_quelle — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:47:07 +0000

A friend of mine got injured and needed to rest his right hand for few months. I bought him a screen reading software and I can tell you he was more than happy…and he is not visually impaired! My point is: those assitive technologies can help everyone …at any time!

By: Sailesh Panchang, Deque Systems

Sailesh Panchang, Deque Systems — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:01:38 +0000

The introduction to WCAG 1.0 also recognizes that making Web content accessible to one
group of users often serves the interest of other users with disabilities. And that is quite
true. Users of screen reading software require both input and output mediums to be made
accessible and this benefits many many users who are not blind.
For many other organizations that need to be forced to incorporate accessibility into their
Web content perhaps meeting the needs of non-visual access is a good first step. Certainly
making content accessible to everyone should be the final goal.

By: Ryan B

Ryan B — Fri, 11 May 2007 22:12:39 +0000

I think it is pretty funny that an image-only PDF was used. One thing think about is that there is the NFB, and they have the power to bring Target to court, but what about other disabilities. The only other group I can think about is UCP. So websites are given athumbs up after they pass for blind users, because there is not any major groups that say hey what about us?

By: Jim Thatcher

Jim Thatcher — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:30:52 +0000

Joe, I totally agree with you when you say: “It just isn’t fine for accessibility advocates to pretend that’s [sticking up for the blind, I think] enough.”
But Matt said:

I think what you just advocated in the name of the NFB defeats the purpose of both the term and the concept itself.

At no time have I said that I advocated just for blind access; I said the NFB did - and should. And by the way, I am not saying that amazon.com/access is good - for anything, especially accessibility. Just that I think the site was designed for mobile devices. I think alternative sites are a bad idea for many reasons.

By: Joe Clark

Joe Clark — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:07:57 +0000

If you want to go that far, Jim, then neither “screen reader” nor “screen-access software” adequately explains what’s happening when a Web site is read.

Of course it’s fine and dandy for the NFB to stick up for the blind, despite their history of selectively doing so. It just isn’t fine for accessibility advocates to pretend that’s enough.

By: Joe Dolson

Joe Dolson — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:12:27 +0000

Although it’s reasonable, I suppose, for the NFB to prioritize access for the blind, it seems more in the spirit of the organization to at least allow for consideration of other disabilities. Granted, the issues experienced by the deaf aren’t the “responsibility” of the NFB — but website accessibility should always be considered to be a wider field than just improving the experiences of the blind.

By: Matt Bailey

Matt Bailey — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:33:30 +0000

Jim, I can even view Amazon.com on a mobile device. It’s tricky, and not fluid by any means, but I see what you mean. Ideally, if sites were built for interoperability, would a seperate mobile site even be necessary?

Obviously, you and Joe Clark have a history and some strong opinions to go along with that. However, I will always side with complete accessibility, and not just accessibility for one group of people. I think what you just advocated in the name of the NFB defeats the purpose of both the term and the concept itself.

Do you remember the criticism Google Accessible Search came under just last year because it was accessibility for blind users? You can’t focus on one group, leave the rest out, and still call it accessible.

By: Jim Thatcher

Jim Thatcher — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:46:47 +0000

Hi Matt. You mentioned,

I could use Amazon.com on my mobile phone or any other device besides a browser if that were possible.

That is exactly what amazon.com/access was designed for (I believe).

And while I’m “here,” contrary to Joe Clark’s opinion, it is proper and sensible that the National Federation of the Blind advocate for access by blind people - that is where their expertise is and where their priorities lie.

By: Matt Bailey

Matt Bailey — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:54:01 +0000

Jim, very good to know that - thank you very much for the education and the clarification on the terminology.