From: "Curtis Chong" 
Subject: Fw: the public face of nfb
----------
From: Curtis Chong 
To: ddunfee 
Subject: Re: the public face of nfb
Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 5:20 PM
Dear Mr. Dunfee:
     I have received your letter of March 29, 1998, and I believe
you misunderstand.  In the National Federation of the Blind our
objective is the widest possible access to information for blind
people.  Although it may be possible to perform many (or even
most) computer applications without using Microsoft products, it
would be much better if we had access to all computer programs,
including those produced by Microsoft.  We hope that you believe
that such an approach is more desirable than carrying a grudge,
expressing anger or shouting and screaming.
     I rarely use sighted assistants to operate computers, but
sometimes I do.  Occasionally, this method is more efficient for
me than others that are available.  If I thought I were inferior
to the sighted, or if I felt great insecurity about my blindness,
I might be troubled in my heart by using sighted help.  However,
I do not feel insecure, and I am not inferior.  Consequently, I
will use the method that I think works best.
     With respect to cooperation between the National Federation
of the Blind and Microsoft, I am a strong advocate of such
cooperation.  Microsoft has something we want.  We have something
that can be of great benefit to Microsoft-even though Microsoft
sometimes fails to recognize this.  In as much as we both have
something to give and something to get, we should be in an
excellent position to work together.  I suspect that a lot more
information will be available to the blind as a result.
                              Very truly yours,
                              Curtis Chong
                              Director of Technology
                              NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
----------
From: ddunfee 
To: chong99@concentric.net
Cc: nfb 
Subject: the public face of nfb
Date: Sunday, March 29, 1998 9:38 PM
hello mr. chong,
 
i have a few questions which arose when reading the ny times article
in which you were quoated.   because you posted the entire article to
the nfb-talk mailing list, one must assume that you find it's
contents, and your views, important.
 
1.  please elaberate upon the following quoation:
 
could you amplify upon this statement?   it appears to suggest that the
computer is just an add on to what truly can make one an equal in
education and jobs.   what is that something else?   to what can you
point that comes even a fraction as close as does computers and
related technology to putting the blind on an equal standing with the
sighted?   perhaps you were quoted out of context or i'm reading this
wrong.
 
2.   regarding this quote:
 
He uses the Internet Explorer 3.02 ...
 
did you take the opportunity to set the reporter straight why you are
not using version 4.01 which is later said by a microsoft tout to be
"accessible"?   did you take the opportunity to explain the severe
problems microsoft has with access, and will, in it's own words, for
years to come?   did you tell the reporter that the various levels of
government are not following the law about using accessible software?
what specific steps will you take to educate the reporter with the
misinformation that was left unresolved in the reader's mind about
microsoft?
 
3.   if you did not make this information known, would you explain why
not?    do you want to distance your personal views on this topic from
those held in formal nfb policy.   i trust you know and want to follow
that policy?   would you explain in great detail what nfb policy is on
using non-accessible software?  mr. wunder of the nfb was also quoted
saying microsoft is being responsive.   is this really what you and
the nfb want the general public to think by default?
 
4. can you explain why you are using microsoft products, and thus
giving the implicit impression that to purchase inaccessible software is
ok
even for a blind advocacy group?  are you aware that almost 99 percent
of computer functions can be done on non-microsoft software?   isn't
it a more appropriate image that you as an individual, and spokesman
for the nfb, should be projecting, that is, to make a point not to use
it and let others know you aren't at every opportunity?
 
5.   as a technology person at the nfb, could you tell us what
percentage of software being used is from microsoft?   have you
educated the nfb that all functions can be done without microsoft
software and are you pushing for the alternatives to be purchased and
used with nfb funds?
 
6.  does microsoft provide or subsidize in any way their software for
use by the nfb?  does microsoft provide funds or support in any form
to the nfb?   while you might not know, does the nfb have money
invested in microsoft stock?
 
7.  were you invited and did you attend the recent microsoft summit?
if so, does microsoft provide funds for travel and room and board?
has mr. gates ever answered your letters of last fall?   have you
published them anywhere, if not, why not?
 
8. as it seems you only post, from time to time, semi official nfb
pronouncements on the mailing lists, in which foromn can one have the
oppertunity to interact with yourself, and the leadership?  do you
feel that greater open interaction about technology polocy should be
present on the mailing lists, if not, why not?
 
9. what is your reaction to the following message, widely posted on
the web?
 
It should be noted that it wasn't Microsoft but the national federation
of the blind that was featured most prominately in the article.  I should
also note that it was curtis and the NFB who used Explorer as their
browser of choice in posing fo
es
r photographs and for demonstration to the
reporter.  If one didn't read the article carefully, one would miss
Curtis' statement that he relies upon his wife Peggy to assist him in
using Internet Explorer and navigating the World Wide Web.
 
regards,
 
dan dunfee
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------