We have lots of laws on the books that some people may disagree with. I happen to disagree with these, and i think I have illustrated my views pretty succinctly as to why. There are also some rather antiquated and silly laws on the books that have never been taken off, so I can't support a blanket statement that any laws that exist ought to be enforced, though I feel that is true on general principle, and could support it if we were better at cleaning up the old ones. But I digress.
I think the undo burden argument could definitely be applied to the iPhone, so we disagree on that point. Apple can argue that the touch screen is unusable by the blind under any circumstances, and most people would buy into that, including most visually impaired individuals. If they continue to believe click wheels are inaccessible, they're never going to try to use a touch screen. Making the device accessible, Apple may argue, would require the development of an entirely new device. I wouldn't agree with it, and Apple would be simply going with popular opinion on that, and probably truly believe it to be true.
Also, Apple may argue that the iPhone is technically a computer that happens to be a phone as well, hence making it fall into the other category you sighted.
I'm a totally blind person. I love accessibility as much as anyone else, but I cannot support that sort of government interference in consumer products. As much as I would love to have an iPhone, and as much as i would love for it to be totally accessible, it's a slippery slope, and one I don't want to go down. We have very different opinions on right or wrong in this case, which is so often the case where law is concerned, hence the differing political parties. *smile*
I certainly won't begrudge you with your attempt on the FCC, I just can't be supportive of it.
Access Curmudgeon wrote:
Josh, I am not for creating new laws, just enforcing the ones we have. There is nothing in ADA, for example, that requires computers or iPods to be accessible. The whole idea of websites as places of public accommodation is extended the law and civil rights. That the iPhone should be accessible is less controversial. Likewise, it is not the ADA that compels products like Macs and iPods to be accessible. It is Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act that does so. Even then, this law applies not to products sold generally, only those sold to the Federal government. However, there is settled law, the Telecommunication Act, that mandates that telephones be accessible. Do you think the cell phone companies all provide hearing aid and tty compatibly out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you think Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals have enough organized market clout that the manufactures do so for economic reasons? Section 255 of the Rehabilitation applies to consumer products. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/cell_phones.html Unlike 508, which is required unless there is undue burden, the level of effort associated with 255 is much lower, it requires only those things that are readily achievable. The rule (1193.41a) already requires that phones be "Operable without vision. Provide at least one mode that does not require user vision." http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/rule.htm The cell phone manufacturers have gotten away with off-loading speech access to third parties because to do otherwise was not readily achievable. But Apple has OS X and VoiceOver, and the iPhone is so much more powerful than anything else on the market. If put on the spot, Apple could not credibly argue that accessibility is beyond their ability. FCC approval is the stick to make sure Apple does the right thing, noting more, and nothing less, than what the law already requires them to do.
