From: sojacobson@mmm.com
Subject: Re: the nfb, discussion continues (fwd)
Dan,
Once again, your message will appear prefixed with a ">" sign.  
> again, it's good to be having real discussion for a change.
Yes, but the purpose of the discussion must also be taken into account, 
and I am no longer certain where you are going with this. My original 
purpose was to try to convey my understanding of the NFB's positions on 
software access.  I am not sure if I consider the stimulation of 
responses through loaded terms such as "brown-nosing" to be discussion.   
With respect to my complimenting your writing:
>    rd thanks, now if folk would only start seriously considering that not
> only
> do i write ok, but it speaks the truth also.   actually i'm
> encouraged, there are others now coming forth here and to me privately
> saying that if it is not accurate, at least there is real discussion
> now.
If those who have privately talked with it has started this discussion 
themselves, perhaps we could have avoided all of the inaccuracies.  We 
need to discuss how to make things accessible, not "if" or "when."  We 
all want it as soon as possible but how well it is done can have an 
effect on the "when."
> rd having confidence in leadership in an open system where information
> is freely shared and ongoing interaction soliciting the knowledge and
> experience of all members, is one thing.   what seems to be the case
> with the nfb is quite another.activities devised at the top without
> input, carried out without confirmation or understanding of the
> membership, and other views seen not as sources of alternate action
> but as descent; is indeed quite different from the former.  how is
> that different then the state agencies?   they too accept "input",
> have committees to be active in, and tell you after the fact when
> actions are taken and policy set; after all it is for your own good
> and they know best.   after all, they are the duelly appointed experts,
> and having been so elevated by the respective states, feel dependence
> on them and having patronage is their just desserts.  rigid top down
> command and control systems are a horse of the same color no matter
> what the letters in the acronyms of their names. "democratic
> participation" which in practice means consenting to agendas set by
> others is a pale image indeed of the real thing.
So, I'm left wondering if all of this is because you truly disagree with 
our approach to accessibility or whether you just don't like our 
structure.  I think your characterization of our procedures is not 
correct.  Those of us who have chosen to be members of the NFB have done 
so because we want to be part of an organization with a philosophy, that 
presents a reasonably unified front after we make a decision, and that  
delegates tasks to those persons among us with the best background and 
ability to deal with that task.  But there is a lot of give and take that 
you won't see from the outside.  Our members are likely better informed 
that you think, and you could learn more about us than you have if you 
thought it was worth the time.  Curtis Chong has written many articles in 
the BRAILLE MONITOR over the years, and there has been much reprinted 
recently regarding Microsoft and accessibility.  Articles on this are 
being printed to inform all members and anyone else who cares what is 
happening and why positions have been taken.  With this information, 
members can let Curt and others know if they disagree and why.  Even if 
you accept what I say as true, you may not be comfortable with this 
structure, but I think you'll have trouble finding a pure democracy. 
You originally quoted Microsoft to say:
> We're building Active Accessibility interfaces into common controls
> and programming tools, so that new applications will be accessible
> automatically, and the inevitable special cases will be easy to make
> accessible.
>  
I responded to you originally:
> If you submit this as proof that an operating can guarantee 
> accessibility, then you already have it in writing that Microsoft is 
> doing what you ask.  In actual fact, those "inevitable special cases" 
> proves my point that Microsoft can't guarantee accessibility through the 
> operating system.  They can make it easier and more automatic than it has 
> been.  Of course I'd like to see things happen faster, but I think it is 
> a realistic statement that you have reproduced.
>  
You responded:
> proclamations.
I almost deleted this whole segment from my response because I don't 
honestly know what you are saying here.  However, I was afraid that you 
might think I was dodging whatever point you were making.  If you think 
it is important, please explain.
I wrote originally:
> As I read it, Microsoft tried to get Java access to fit into their MSAA 
> model because it already existed.  Sun believed MSAA was inadequate and 
> believed they needed to develop Java-based access.  We won't know who is 
> right until we see what happens to Java access and how it affects the 
> developments on other platforms.
You wrote:
> rd access was the last of the reasons to fool with java.   because ms
> dominates the market,   changes they unilaterally add to java that
> work only in their applications means they will dictate their use and
> the future of java.   ms agreed when buying a license for java not to
> fool with it.   they did and are getting sued for breaking the
> license.  java threatens ms because it will run on any machine with
> any operating system.   it would break the monopoly and open the
> market up again.
Sorry, I assumed we were talking about accessibility.  I thought you were
referring to the fact that Microsoft originally advocated MSAA as a
connection to Java while SUN advocated a separate approach that they felt
was more complete.  You are really going beyond accessibility, here.  We
should care as consumers, but we're probably going to vary in our opinions
as blind people to the same degree as everyone else.  With respect to the
Sun lawsuit, one can probably make the case that it will help or hurt
accessibility, so what is the point. 
> rd ok, after all that, so why is the nfb brown nosing ms like no other 
> advocacy group? the only nfb response publicly made available are 
> the 1 or 2 "dear bill"milk toast letters from mr. chung to ms last 
> fall.  if there is more, what is it and why has it not been widely 
> discussed here and in the bm? did mr. chung ever get a reply and what 
> was it? 
How did you come to this conclusion?  Is there a "brown nose" factor that 
you used to rank us?  Come to think of it, "brown nosing" would be a rank 
factor by definition.  Seriously, I don't see what difference it makes 
for this discussion, and I doubt that Microsoft thinks your terminology 
applies to us.
Dan, I've tried to give my answers to your questions, but at some point 
we have to move on.  We're discussing the NFB more than access now, so 
others will have to help with those answers.
--
          Steve Jacobson
          National Federation of the Blind
          3M Company 
          E-mail:  SOJACOBSON@MMM.COM
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 3M Company.
--
          Steve Jacobson
          National Federation of the Blind
          3M Company 
          E-mail:  SOJACOBSON@MMM.COM
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 3M Company.
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------