The problem is that when when we say it's a sighted world, it means
totally different things to the blind or to the sighted.
To the blind it means a never-ending battle for accessibility and inclusion.
For the sighted it means that although we may sympathize, those issues
don't exist for us.
It's! not! the! same! thing!
Maria Campbell
[email protected]
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
--Attributed to Jimi Hendrix
On 2/5/2016 9:51 AM, Adrian Spratt wrote:
Brian,
You seem intent on characterizing anyone who disagrees with you as
claiming the victim card. You write:
What I do have a problem with is certain people acting like it's OK to
hold the false belief that Captchas were a targeted attack on
accessibility and the blind. They weren't, they just had that as a
very nasty side effect. The companies had a choice to make based upon
the technology available at the time, and if it fixed their major
issue, and it did, while screwing over a tiny fraction of their
customer base, which it did, any sane person knows how the math goes
with that one and that it's the math, and nothing else, that was the
primary consideration. It wasn't about you, and treating it as though
it was isn't doing anyone any favors. Knowing the difference between
being attacked, and being collateral damage, gives one perspective.
My attitude has to do with addressing reality and stepping outside
one's own bubble, which some seem incapable of doing.
Back to me. Who on this list claimed the CAPTCHA solution was targeted
at blind people? I don’t recall reading any such post. The question
isn’t about targeting. It does have more to do with the small market
issue that Soronel brings up. this is a kind of economic democracy
argument that makes undeniable practical sense. However, the U.S.
Constitution recognized the need to balance the interests of
minorities even in a country where the majority rules. This was the
premise of the civil rights campaigns of the fifties all the way to
the gay rights transformation we’ve witnessed in this generation.
Many advocates are working from this foundation to ensure equal access
for disabled people. Equal access includes simultaneous access as
non-disabled people when it comes to technology.
I don’t agree with Soronel, but I respect the integrity of his
argument. You set up the straw man of disabled people who like being
victims. Not good.
*From:*Brian Vogel [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Friday, February 05, 2016 10:20 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: Improving my teaching approach and/or sensitivity
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:54 pm, Soronel Haetir
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
They solved an
actual problem and sad to say the slice of potential customers unable
to deal with them is small enough that I can well see companies having
better things to focus on. Companies don't _owe_ us anything.
And even if the companies do "owe you something," Captchas, as I
already pointed out, at length, came into existence to address a
pressing and immediate problem that was getting worse and worse and
worse. It was far more important to stop it, as dead as possible, and
quickly, than anything else.
I have no problem with people complaining about Captchas, advocating
for changes, etc. That's been done and those issues have been
identified and registered. The creation of the reCaptcha is a direct
result.
What I do have a problem with is certain people acting like it's OK to
hold the false belief that Captchas were a targeted attack on
accessibility and the blind. They weren't, they just had that as a
very nasty side effect. The companies had a choice to make based upon
the technology available at the time, and if it fixed their major
issue, and it did, while screwing over a tiny fraction of their
customer base, which it did, any sane person knows how the math goes
with that one and that it's the math, and nothing else, that was the
primary consideration. It wasn't about you, and treating it as though
it was isn't doing anyone any favors. Knowing the difference between
being attacked, and being collateral damage, gives one perspective.
My attitude has to do with addressing reality and stepping outside
one's own bubble, which some seem incapable of doing.
