anti-word

[Amanda Lee]

Janina and all,

There is an exception and that is if a Federal Employee is covered under a
Union Bargaining Agreement as most Federal Employees are, then there is
typically language within the Contract which provides for the accomodation
of persons with disabilities.

Federal Employees obviously are not under the ADA but I believe the Fair
Labor Standards Act and other EEO regulations related to Federal Employees
are also applicable.

Yeah! I'm a lawyer wannabee ha!

Amanda Lee



On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Janina Sajka wrote:

> Charley:
>
> First of all, thanks for stating the employment situation from the
> positive perspective. I think you and I said substantially the same thing,
> though I said it more negatively.
>
> The issue of whether or not access can be limited to any particular type
> of technology is, I think, at the core of the issue in the public domain.
> Let me take it to 508 directly. My 508 analysis says two things:
>
> 1.)	The goivernment, as the employer of persons with disabilities, can
> mandate any technology it wishes to mandate, because it also has the power
> and obligation to deliver that technology to the worker's desk, together
> with training and support which understands and teaches how to use that
> technology accessibly. Example? PDF maybe a pretty dumb file format, but
> it's probably OK for the Feds to adopt PDF inhouse;
>
> 2.)	Publishing to the public is a different matter entirely. The
> government is obligated in its public information systems to serve the
> public, broadly defined. It must, therefore, adopt generic technologies
> which are most likely to serve the greatest number of users. This is its
> fundamental obligation. It cannot, therefore, adopt technologies in its
> public infrastructures which require proprietary technologies adopted by
> some users, but not by others, as long as a significant minority exists.
> It is probably this "significant minority" which determines the bounds of
> this mandate, i.e. cp/m support can probably be ignored, but DOS users,
> Mac users, and (increasingly) linux users, probably cannot be ignored.
> Example: We may argue whether or not PDF is accessible with the recent
> enhancements from Adobe and their incorporation by screen readers such as
> JFW and WinEyes. In the public information sector this argument is
> irrelevant. A significant number, possibly still even a majority, of the
> public who are persons with disabilities do not have these technologies
> and cannot be compelled to acquire them in order to obtain service from
> the Federal government. Moreover, the government must design its public
> information systems in such a manner as is most likely to serve all of
> these users, and not just those who have laid out the greenbacks to
> acquire and acquaint themselves with more recent versions of Windows and
> one of the aforementioned Windows screen readers;
>
> Given that something like 90% of Federal IT spending (total of about $68
> Billion by 2006) is projected to be contracted out (today's Wall Street
> Journal), we can expect to see this theory tested in the courts, imho.
>
>
>
>
>  On Mon, 14 Jan
> 2002, Charles Crawford wrote:
>
> > Janina,
> >
> >          I am not sure there is an entitlement to the processor or file of
> > your choosing as much as there is an entitlement to accessibility.  Your
> > point on having to buy a new computer to access something does however
> > modify the situation and I will have to think about that one.
> >
> > -- charlie Crawford.
> > At 03:08 PM 1/13/02 -0500, you wrote:
> > >Well, I believe you're wrong on both counts, in terms of what AFB supports
> > >and in terms of what's good for blind people.
> > >
> > >Proprietary formats that work sometimes, and don't work often are not good
> > >for blind people. For example, when it comes to inaccessible documents,
> > >such as the forms mentioned in an earlier message, an accomondation can
> > >reasonably be enforced under the ADA. I speak here of the most
> > >restrictive circumstance such that of employment where, as you
> > >pointed out, there are defined company standards. There are other
> > >examples.
> > >
> > >You have, however, apparently narrowed the scope of this discussion to
> > >file sharing within some kind of organizational entity--a company, a
> > >school.  The issue goes beyond that.
> > >
> > >When the situation is a proprietary format to someone outside of an
> > >organizational entity, the entity is on even weaker ground. They have no
> > >basis in law to compel someone to spend money on devices they would
> > >otherwise not purchase in order to read something they're entitled to
> > >read. An excellent example of this circumstance are Sec. 508 (and I
> > >daresay 504). When the government chooses to publish forms on the web,
> > >they are now required to be accessible forms. And, they must be accessible
> > >to a wider variety of individuals with a wider variety of technologies.
> > >They cannot, for example, say "Word is accessible, so we can publish
> > >Word," because it's arguably only accessible to those with that kind of
> > >technology. The public service must serve the greater public, not just
> > >that majority that may have chosen Word somehow.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  On
> > >Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Kirk Wood wrote:
> > >
> > > > I hope for the sake of blind people Janina speaks for herself and not the
> > > > AFB. Reality strike here. Many people use their computer for primarily
> > > > business reasons. And as such they are stuck with the arrogant rules of a
> > > > business. For some stupid reason us sighted folks prefer text that is
> > > > formatted. And no Janina, html and text don't give the level of formatting
> > > > that word does. Sorry, but does not computer. Will not compute.
> > > >
> > > > =======
> > > > Kirk Wood
> > > > Cpt.Kirk at 1tree.net
> > > >
> > > > Nowlan's Theory:
> > > >         He who hesitates is not only lost, but several miles from
> > > >         the next freeway exit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >
> > >                                 Janina Sajka, Director
> > >                                 Technology Research and Development
> > >                                 Governmental Relations Group
> > >                                 American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
> > >
> > >Email: janina at afb.net           Phone: (202) 408-8175
> > >
> > >Chair, Accessibility SIG
> > >Open Electronic Book Forum (OEBF)
> > >http://www.openebook.org
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Speakup mailing list
> > >Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
> --
>
> 				Janina Sajka, Director
> 				Technology Research and Development
> 				Governmental Relations Group
> 				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
>
> Email: janina at afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175
>
> Chair, Accessibility SIG
> Open Electronic Book Forum (OEBF)
> http://www.openebook.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>