Back-Accessward

Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

2007-04-07T07:21:00.000-04:00

We finally signed up for NetFlix. I am not sure why we have been resisting. Our first choice, Borat, took me aback: I could not believe NetFlix used backup discs! Is that legal? Cheap ones too. The only that made me suspicious is that the text appeared to be hand written. Surely NetFlix would use machine labeling, and the text was quite neat, so maybe it was just an informal font? But the “R” in BORAT was backwards, a trick that would certainly give me pause.&nbsb; And the disc read “widescreen” but how would that be a feature of a blank? Unless that was meant to imply high quality from a brand, Demorez, that I had never heard from? Their slogan was lame: “Is Life? No. Demorez.”

So I am too naive. The write up on the disk sleeve held the explaination:
Note: This is the actual studio-released DVD, not a DVD-R.

Good movie to rent. Not as funny as I was expecting. And I already knew Americans were that ugly. Plus, no way do I need to see the naked fat man wrestling again.

FCC seeks comment on their implementation of Section 504

2007-04-01T12:01:00.000-04:00

I got this in email from NCD. The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) seeks comment on the Commission’s policies and practices under Section 504.

The actual on-line ECFS form is at URL: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
For 1. Proceeding enter: 03-123
For 13. File Number enter: DA 07-1396

Somewhat remarkably, the FCC seems unable to post public notices in HTML. Instead, they post inferior versions in Word, PDF, and plain text. For further irony, the Word and PDF versions even include live hyperlinks.

If I could be bothered to comment myself, that is the kind of thing I would complain about. Instead, I converted the damn thing to html myself.

DA-07-1396A1

2007-03-23T00:01:00.000-04:00

	Public Notice
	Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554	News Media Information: 202/418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322

DA 07-1396
Released: March 23, 2007

The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau seeks comment on the
Commission’s policies and practices under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973

CG Docket No. 03-123

Pleading Cycle Established

Comments Due: May 22, 2007

The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) initiates review of the Commission’s policies and practices under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504).¹ Pursuant to Section 1.1810 of the Commission’s rules, this Public Notice seeks comment on the accessibility of the Commission’s programs and activities.² The Commission’s rules mandate that it conduct a review of its current policies and practices in view of advances in relevant technology and achievability every three years.³

The Commission’s rules also require that the Section 504 Handbook⁴ be updated at least every three years.⁵ Therefore, the Bureau further initiates review of the Section 504 Handbook, which contains procedures for releasing documents, holding meetings, receiving comments, and for other aspects of Commission programs and activities to achieve accessibility.⁶

The Bureau seeks comment on the overall accessibility of the Commission’s activities and programs. This includes, but is not limited to, the availability of sign language interpreters, physically accessible buildings and meeting spaces, Braille documents, assistive listening devices, Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning, and other forms of reasonable accommodation for access to Commission programs and activities.⁷ The Commission further seeks comment on the procedures set forth in the Section 504 Handbook.

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules,⁸ interested parties may file comments on or before May 22, 2007. All comments must reference CG Docket No. 03-123. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
- The Commission’s contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
- Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
- U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12^th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
Pursuant to section 1.1810(b) of the Commission’s rules, “Written comments shall be signed by the commenter or by someone authorized to do so on his or her behalf. The signature of the commenter, or signature of someone authorized by the commenter to do so on his or her behalf, shall be provided on print comments. Comments in audio, Braille, electronic, and/or video formats shall contain an affirmative identity statement of the individual, which for this purpose shall be considered to be functionally equivalent to a commenter’s signature.”⁹

A copy of this document and any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Center, Portals II, 445 12^th Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202)418-0270. This document and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission’s duplicating contractor at their website, www.bcpiweb.com, or by calling 1-800-378-3160. A copy of the submission may also be found by searching on the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at http://www.fcc.gov.cgb/ecfs (insert CG Docket No. 03-123 into the Proceeding block).

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)418-0530 (voice), (202)418-0432 (TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.

For further information, please contact Diane Mason, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202)418-7126 (voice), (202)418-7828 (TTY), or e-mail at Diane.Mason@fcc.gov.

¹ See 29 U.S.C. § 794.

² 47 C.F.R. § 1.1810.

³ Id.

⁴ See Federal Communications Commission Section 504 Programs & Activities Accessibility Handbook (Section 504 Handbook). The Section 504 Handbook is available in Word, PDF, Text, HTML and Braille at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/section_504.html.

⁵ See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1805.

⁶ Id.

⁷ See Section 504 Handbook at 2.

⁸ 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419.

⁹ 47 C.F.R. § 1.1810(b).

–FCC–

Appendix A

47 C.F.R. § 1.1810. Review of Compliance.

(a) The Commission shall, beginning in 2004 and at least every three years thereafter, review its current policies and practices in view of advances in relevant technology and achievability. Based on this review, the Commission shall modify its practices and procedures to ensure that the Commission’s programs and activities are fully accessible.

(b) The Commission shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with disabilities or organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to participate in the review process by submitting comments. Written comments shall be signed by the commenter or by someone authorized to do so on his or her behalf. The signature of the commenter, or signature of someone authorized by the commenter to do so on his or her behalf, shall be provided on print comments. Comments in audio, Braille, electronic, and/or video formats shall contain an affirmative identity statement of the individual, which for this purpose shall be considered to be functionally equivalent to a commenter s signature.

(c) The Commission shall maintain on file and make available for public inspection for four years following completion of the compliance review –

(1) A description of areas examined and problems identified;

(2) All comments and complaints filed regarding the Commission’s compliance; and

(3) A description of any modifications made.

Appendix B

47 C.F.R. § 1.1805. Federal Communications Commission Section 504 Programs and Activities Accessibility Handbook.

The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau shall publish a “Federal Communications Commission Section 504 Programs and Activities Accessibility Handbook” (“Section 504 Handbook”) for Commission staff, and shall update the Section 504 Handbook as necessary and at least every three years. The Section 504 handbook shall be available to the public in hard copy upon request and electronically on the website. The Section 504 Handbook shall contain procedures for releasing documents, holding meeting, receiving comments, and for other aspects of Commission programs and activities to achieve accessibility. These procedures will ensure that the Commission presents a consistent and complete accommodation policy pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 794, as amended. The Section 504 Handbook is for internal staff use and public information only, and is not intended to create any rights, responsibilities, or independent cause of action against the Federal Government.

Web 101: Link, don’t quote

2007-01-22T20:33:00.000-05:00

What is it with Bloggers who don’t use URLs? Chris H. quotes Jamal who quotes Vaugh who quotes Martin Belam who quotes Erica Sadun. Each blog more obscure than the one before, this one the least trafficked of them all! If any one of them had just pointed to TUAW rather than quoting out of context, readers would have been better served, and the subsequent blog discussions could have been informed rather than inflammatory. I quickly tallied the first 62 comments and got an enlightened to jerk ratio of five to seven. (Actually it was 25:35, I must have miscounted twice.) For an open fanboy forum on a rather specialized topic, I don’t think this is a bad showing, even if several of the early comments are especially cringeworthy.

index

2006-05-27T09:16:00.000-04:00

Blogging is one way to work through frustrations. Distracting oneself with drugs or alcohol is another. Who is to say which is the more dysfunctional? Lately I have been playing The Battle for Wesnoth but I think I am just about over that. Good thing Civ IV comes out soon. But I will be waiting a while this time, since Civ III was such a huge disappointment.

I/O, I/O, off to work I go!

2006-04-05T21:10:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I opined about why a TAB would be interested in the field of disability and assistive technology in particular. But that wasn’t actually the original question. That inquiry was about access, which isn’t quite the same thing.

Access is input and output. Which, if you really think about it, is the not the most important part of what a computer does for you, although it is the only parts addressed by assistive technology. The real value of computers is in the computing, the processing. The connection to the network is now key, but that is really just the connection to data, data which needs to be turned into information, and information that needs to be turned into meaning. Meaning itself takes different shapes or forms as it might be for learning and knowledge, entertainment, or facilitate the emotional connection to others. We really do not have a strong investment in how we interact with computers, at least not as compared to the value we place on the work they do. That we use a mouse and keyboard for input, and a screen for output is artifice. We haven’t figured out how to do things a better way. Working in the field of assistive technology allows its practitioners more perspective into just how arbitrary our input/ouput systems are. I/O is not just arbitrary, it is fundamentally broken. I wish I knew how to fix things, surely that would make the world a better place, and make me quite wealthy! At least I can pontificate on some of the problems.

The screen doesn’t seem to be too bad, we have happily enjoyed television for decades, and we are very visual beings by default. Computers, in contrast, excel at numbers, ultimately binary, which we use the screen to translate to words and window dressing for our convenience. The data is pure and easy to transform from pure states to arbitrary lines and curves that humans can visually associate meaning to. This is a hack though, it takes advantage of our capacity to digest visual information and to isolate key elements from a noisy environment. Rather than just output meaning, the computer display throws up a bunch of data on the screen with the expectation that the end-user will make sense of. The real work is left to the programmer or content provider. Things work out well enough, but it is not efficient. A 32 bit color display with a resolution of 1024 by 768 refreshing at 60 Hz pushes over 150 million bits per second. How much of that nine nine billion bits per minute does a human really process? How much does a person really need? Screen reader users are quite familiar with the imposition on them of linearizing a two dimensional system. It is almost amazing that things can work out as well as they do, but part of that success has to be because the computer output system is so absurdly wasteful already, loosing another order of magnitude for textual equivalents, is hardly a burden.

I regard the screen as less of a compromise than our chosen input method. A keyboard and mouse system was not designed for humans, we fell into its use by accident, and our inability to conceive of anything better. Again, it works okay, but who do you know that has three hands? If, based only on this critically important tool that humans construct for themselves, an alien race were to try to make inferences about features of the human body, what would they logically imagine? Fingers numerous and uniform like piano keys? A swath of tendrils or tentacles, one for each button? Surely humans have two sets of eyes, since, by design, efficient use requires close monitoring of both input and output systems, as the keyboard-mouse combination is simply too complex never to require visual (or tactile) exploration. Would humans really choose for themselves a device that required weeks and weeks of dedicated practice to develop the motor conditioning necessary for routine use? Would they allow themselves to be constrained to a layout routed in mechanical limitation decades after that constrainst was resolved?

Neither the keyboard nor monitor makes sense. Adding the mouse to the mix makes it more absurd. As assistive technologies, we know none of it is really necessary. Yet the best we can do is to emulate a keyboard, or add software to scrape the screen. I know I don’t like it. I know it is holding us back. I just wish I knew of a better solution!

IEP rhymes with Courtesy

2006-04-04T20:53:00.000-04:00

Today was my daughter’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) meeting. It was a good excuse to take a day off work. I imagine most parents approach the IEP with apprehension. The process can be intimidating as there are all these people, professionals, most of whom are unknown to Mom and Dad, siting around in judgement of your child, and, by corollary, your parenting skills. They, of course, all know and work with each other. All children should be so lucky to be the subject of so much attention.

Ours had the assistant principal, classroom teacher, classroom aid, special education coordinator, occupational therapist, physical therapist, and speech language pathologist. Pretty typical roster really. That made the score seven to two and half as we also also brought my three year old son, who did his level best to distract everyone in the room. As with most parents, we love to talk about our children and the IEP gives us a designated audience with proper frame of reference and appreciation. Our meetings always run long, probably because we participate (or at least chat) more than I think the group is really prepared for. I don’t know how our behavior compares to other parents, but I would guess that many of them are stunned by the logistics and numbed by the amount of data that is churned through.

IEP meetings are twice a year. This is probably our eighth one since our daughter is now six and in kindergarten and was enrolled into the public education system just before she turned three. She is diagnosed with Autism which is in the family of Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD).

Our daughter has had a very good year. She is in a regular kindergarten classroom, supported by a few hours of special attention each week and the presence of a full time classroom assistant. Our daughter is in the middle academically, perhaps the lower third, but we are just thrilled that she is being tested using all the mainstream measures. That is remarkable progress for her. I am also a little amazed as to the expectations for all the children are being taught.

I don’t remember the academic lessons of my own kindergarten, but I do know the major focus of the year was merely the alphabet. I am sure of that because I was so jealous of the of the neat letter-based cartoon characters my brother came home with from his class four years after me. I remember thinking that we didn’t have anything that neat. I think they did about one letter per week. Thirty years later, schools do that much in the first month! My daughter, along with all the other students, is doing some reading and wrote sixteen words in a formal timed test not long ago.

Her mother and I believe our daughter’s future is without constraints. The feeling is so liberating for us. We try not to live too much in the future, but our daughters long term options now seems as limitless as any other child’s. It is new for us to be able to think this way. Less than two years ago our daughter lacked the verbal ability to tell us when she was feeling sick. About then we understood she had a bad headache because she got us to fetch her a band-aid, which she applied to the middle of her forehead.

This past weekend my daughter did three new things without prompting. These may seem small to the parents of most six year olds, but were all milestones to us. At the zoo she asked a girl, a stranger a little older than her, if the girl wanted a push on the tire swing. The day before at the park she asked the owner of a dog if she could pet the lady’s dog. A little while latter when were out for dinner, as I was talking to her about ordering something other than her usual food, she asked me, “Well, what are you having?”

My daughter is a lovely little girl, but for most of her life, when out in public, often her behavior is odd enough to attract modest attention. It has been amazing to me how bluntly rude strangers are comfortable being. As often as not, a child or adult would ask: “What is wrong with her?”

Like most parents, we still have the occasional meltdowns at the mall, but it is a huge relief that we no longer expect spectacle. We can still count on crass questions from ignorant strangers though, but now the subject is my son. “Where does he get that red hair?”

What motivates people?

2006-04-03T21:42:00.000-04:00

A respected college asks: What motivates people with out any type of disability, to get passionate about other’s access? I would like to answer this questions for my own person, but a small detour, as the question implies a few things worth addressing.

The very question betrays some cynicism, as if the field of Assistive Technology could not lure the best and the brightest or had little appeal to those with other choices. The economic constraints associated with the field give some credence to this mindset, but I reject any assertion that the work, speaking broadly, is anything but of the most important endeavors someone with a technology bent can be privileged to pursue.

Let us acknowledge that the AT field has a disproportionate number of people with disabilities (PwDs) working in it. That makes perfect sense as people who rely on technology frequently work to improve said technology and, to be successful in modern business, people with significant sensory or physical impairments have few modern career paths that donrsquo;t require a success history of relying on assistive technology.

One other big driver for the Temporally Able Bodied (TAB) into AT has been those who have cause to use technology in their work, and go into AT full time because they find it so compelling. Many great AT professionals started with ordinary careers as Speech Language Pathologist, Occupational Therapists, or Special Education Teachers. AT is only just now getting mature enough that people can enter the field right out of college.

Lastly, the other common story is having a relative or close friend with a significant disability and personally discovering from that route how important AT is. Their are lots of parents of children with disabilities in our field. There are plenty of examples of single product companies being founded by a spouse or child of a PWD. Some of these have matured to offer fairly broad (relatively speaking) product lines. Even just being a friend or acquaintance has been enough to attract bright minds.

Now, as fate or providence would have it, I now fall into this last of three broad categories. I have been working on my explanation that I fell into the AT field sixteen years ago because I have a six year old daughter with a severe cognitive delay. That is the sort of answer people expect, and sometimes a long explanation is a burden. You, dear reader, get the full story.

Some of us come by AT by more circuitous routes. My initial aspirations were the furthest thing from noble, I was merely looking for someone CCD to help pay for my graduate school. I was feeling pretty burnt out on technology at that point, I wondered why anyone would try to make some poor handicapped personrsquo;s live more difficult by making them use a compter. That initial ignorance and skepticism served me well, as I quickly understood. My conversion to an assistive technology evangelist was all the more complete because of how low were my initial expectations.

All of these routes to the AT field are invisible, exposed only if one knows the practitioner personally and if one asks the questions or finds out more background. Yes, I agree that nearly everyone in AT has deep personal reasons for being in the field. It is not just a job. It is a career and a passion.

But let me ask the impolite opposite question to this. Just because someone works in AT, and has an apparent disability, do you assume they could not find other work? I should hope not.

There is the popular joke: Those who can't do, teach! I believe this comes from the defensive instinct of human nature to be intimidated by those who would dedicate their lives to a noble cause. Teaching as a career is so marginalized economically that an easy explanation is that there is something wrong with those that pursue it.

I reject the philosophy that onersquo;s actions are some how lessened if the motivation is not pure. (I must admit some hypocrisy on this point as there are some people for whom I am unwilling to generously attribute their not-inconsiderable contributions.) Taking this a step further, some dead-in-their-heart cynics give no credit to people who get a good feeling from doing good work. They hold that charity is driven not by those who are self-less, but by those who selfishly desire the good feeling they get from doing good work. Apparently, to be these cynics, one must do good work while resenting the time spent?

I am fortunate that in my senior year at college I had some influences that caused me to consider that working in a lucrative field might be burdened with limited intrinsic value. I lacked much real world exposure, so about the only nobel path I thought feasible to pursue was teaching. I lacked a certain disciplinarian presence back then, so my classroom experience was less than entirely successful, at least in the minds of my instructors. I was just looking for a way subsidize the last year of graduate school needed to get closure on a degree when I found assistive technology. I had very little idea where I would be starting my career when assistive technology found me.

Assistive technology is a fabulous way to connect with people. It gets out of one of the most fundamental drivers for society, making things better for humans. The opportunity to get paid to perform good work is rare. For a computer geek, there is no higher calling, no better challenge, nothing more rewarding, than working in assistive technology. I am a lucky guy.

hello world

2006-04-01T10:00:00.000-05:00

I really don’t like blogs. And now I have one. But the timing is good as my self-esteem is already low, so perhaps this will be therapeutic rather than merely indulgent? I have been resisting the temptation for years, ever since I asked Joe Clark the epistemology of the word back in 1998 or so. With luck, this blog will fall into the popular pattern of being active for a month or so, and then be abandoned for years…

The coincidences feel like serendipity. It is All Fools’ Day. I had a major career set back this week. And I am really looking forward to an ongoing debate with this guy and a BlogSpot account sure would facilitate the discussion. My initial plans call for ranting about the problems with personal computers at large and the assistive technology industry in particular. Time to burn some bridges. Were I less naive, I would have abandon ambitions of ever working for Microsoft or Apple years ago!