Government To Require Websites Be Handicap Accessible?

munkle

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
11,800
You kind of answered your own question.

The limit is death. Or possibly being blind AND deaf.

But as long as someone is either blind or death.. we should help them.

But not by heightening taxes - just by using them better.

Don't think the government uses taxes well? Get rich.

I WANT WEBSITES IN BRAILLE! WITH DAILY UPDATES! :p
 

NickS

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
1,953
Am I the only one who thinks this is an awesome thing? I have several eye diseases that will one day make me blind. I am a gamer, PC tech, movie fan, etc. Wtf am I going to do in x years when I'm blind? Stare blankly at the wall? Imagine yourself going deaf or blind for a moment then see if your opinion changes. I think its great that we can try to help people with disabilities feel a little more normal and improve quality of life. We have the technology to do it. Sure it costs money, but tech refreshes so quickly now anyway. Build the next thing with the possible new laws in mind from the get go.

It sounds brutal but you can't make everyone feel normal. It just doesn't happen. That is our biggest problem as a country, trying to cuddle and make everyone feel normal.

My 16 year old sister was just diagnosed with a serious eye disease as well, and they're saying her retina may be come detached any time now.. could be tomorrow, could be five years. They can't do anything about it, other than wait and rush her into emergency surgery when it happens and pray she doesn't go blind. She aspires to be a high school teacher and is working hard at her grades to do so. Do you see me changing my opinion? No. We're dealt the card we have, and some are less fortunate than others. Soldier on. Flame on.
 
D

Deleted member 133315

Guest
WTF, how can the government force websites to add a wheelchair ramp for accessability ?

This is just insane, next they will be wanting hand rails added to websites, who ever thought this up is retarded...
 

munkle

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
11,800
I WANT WEBSITES IN BRAILLE! WITH DAILY UPDATES! :p

OOO I just thought of an idea, make a braille printer, and people can just print a website out in that. I would that would be fairly easy to do.
 

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
It sounds brutal but you can't make everyone feel normal. It just doesn't happen. That is our biggest problem as a country, trying to cuddle and make everyone feel normal.

My 16 year old sister was just diagnosed with a serious eye disease as well, and they're saying her retina may be come detached any time now.. could be tomorrow, could be five years. They can't do anything about it, other than wait and rush her into emergency surgery when it happens and pray she doesn't go blind. She aspires to be a high school teacher and is working hard at her grades to do so. Do you see me changing my opinion? No. We're dealt the card we have, and some are less fortunate than others. Soldier on. Flame on.

Wait til you get tired of her leaning on you all the time because some of you selfish people don't care enough for a few simple accommodations. You'll be yelling at her in no time to try and fend for herself. But nope, she can't because you won't allow her to enjoy life as anyone else would.

Steve's mother would be proud of the people that post here.

Not.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
I know of a person that has a "signing" business. basically government subsidizes their job to go around and sign for individuals in courts and schools. they make huge amounts of money. So when I was hearing her job described and the amount of money they make I have to shake my head. It is ok for government to waste huge amounts of tax payer money whereas individuals would never spend the money themselves. Because this is government you are talking about there are no market driven forces that help cost be realistic. And the amount doesn't matter because government gets a blank check. states get bailed out. and taxpayers ultimately will have to repay the bill, assuming the government does not collapse due to the weight of the debt.
 

Phalkonone

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
493
Disclosure: I am Deaf/Hard of Hearing, one ear aided, other ear is not (I hear out of the aided ear). I do ok for the most part on the phone, but I am definitely more of a visual person as I cannot hear the radio that well.

While I can appreciate your ailment, U.S. law should not exist to guarantee you an enjoyable television-watching experience via closed captioning. Television is primarily an entertainment medium, and as an informational source, you have several other alternatives.

I will say, though, that companies who provide closed captioning services probably do provide a genuine economic benefit, so the law(s) may not actually be economically harmful (though that doesn't necessarily justify their existence on a matter of pure political principle).

But you feel the federal government should legislate your ability to access to these information sources in a way you are physically able to given your impairment despite that not being a right granted to you by the Constitution? I just don't understand where the entitlement stems from, exactly, because the Constitution itself does not entitle you to it.

Like I said, I take issue with this kind of movement on the basis of political principle, not in a fundamental way.

FYI, the ADA law was passed in the 1990s and there were closed captioned TVs long before that, in my memory, the biggest things I noticed visually with that 1992 law was that places that served the public (sports bars and the like) and had TVs had to have at least one closed captioned capable tv and wheelchair ramps. I was bothered by the fact that for a long time after that law was passed, most hotel rooms didnt have CC capable TVs, its rare now that one isn't CC capable.

IIRC, in the early 1980s (when my family got our first Closed Captioned TV) the network news shows were the first to get captioned, then Sesame Street, then some other shows (If I recall, Kids Incorporated, Knight Rider, Punky Brewster and Thundercats all got captioned within a year of the network news getting it).

[As an aside, from my observation when captioning came out, literacy rates grew, and I happen to think closed captioning helped deaf people and immigrants get the english language, grammar and spelling better - try peer grading a 8th grade essay from a deaf kid who writes based on ASL (American Sign Language, :eek:)].

Of those shows, only the national network news and some entertainment shows were federally funded, nowadays most captioning for entertainment shows is sponsored by a private corporation (I swear I see Ford sponsoring alot of NFL game captioning).

At the time everyone either got emergency news broadcasts from radio or TV (remember it was the 80s-90s). For a deaf person in an emergency, a radio would be useless, TTY lines would likely be tied up, and I'm pretty sure in the middle of a natural disaster somebody is not likely going to stop and write down an evac center location for a deaf stranger, and there's only so much emergency personnel to go around. Now with data capable phones and the penetration of the internet and the confluence thereof, deaf people only need a reliable way to get access without depending on a human interpreter who might otherwise be incapacitated. Websites, smartphones/two way pagers and TV represent a good visual way to disseminate important information to deaf people.

That said, I can see only .gov websites and network news having to be compliant, especially with web video. Entertainment can be privately funded/sponsored like it is on television.

Now, I also use captioning at school as it allows me to focus on the professor's lecture without missing anything during that lecture, and the captionist uses the same stenography equipment that courthouse stenographers use (they get paid well doing both venues as it turns out). One captionist I conversed with a couple years back mentioned that in some cases they use this system for live closed captioning on tv (captionist gets audio feed, often remotely, and transmits back the transcript).

For my own opinion though - I would love internet video to have prevalence of a CC button (and no the Transcribe Beta™ that I see on youtube is horrible), but I can only see government funding only news clips and .gov related clips.

I have heard that there is a way to convert a TV show's captioning transcript for use on prevalent video formats (in TV the captioning IIRC is embedded into the TV stream that is not seen on display, i.e. the video data that isnt in the viewable part of the TV stream).

As much as I'd like to see captioned [H] video clips (and I wouldnt mind seeing an ad at the end saying "captioning provided/sponsored by ASUS"), it would only be fair to make it economically viable for Kyle to even implement it.
 

WBurchnall

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
2,622
yes, lets make ads specific to blind users. :D

Tired of being blind? What to see like all the other people?

"Well, you won't have to be able to see to see the look on the other faces people faces when you win the lottery." - Mesasge brought to you by Michigan Quick Picks Loto.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
Wait til you get tired of her leaning on you all the time because some of you selfish people don't care enough for a few simple accommodations. You'll be yelling at her in no time to try and fend for herself. But nope, she can't because you won't allow her to enjoy life as anyone else would.

Steve's mother would be proud of the people that post here.

Not.

Wow man, you're getting a little vitriolic. I'm not sure if you want the entire internet to be handi-friendly or what, but you cannot EXPECT charity from other people. I'm sorry, I had bad ear infections (undiagnosed allergies) as a child and lost a good portion of my hearing. Expecting the rest of the world to go out of their way to make everything easier for me would actually not be what I want. I appreciate those charities and publicly funded organizations who help those who need it, but you cannot force empathy. You push people away with this kind of attitude.
 

krotch

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
4,509
And your point is? Oh, you can pull numbers out of your ass? Got it.

Forum's full of internet tough guys, I swear.

It's called the internet. Use it and you'll find the numbers. Your biggest users of CC are ESL students.
 

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
Wow man, you're getting a little vitriolic. I'm not sure if you want the entire internet to be handi-friendly or what, but you cannot EXPECT charity from other people. I'm sorry, I had bad ear infections (undiagnosed allergies) as a child and lost a good portion of my hearing. Expecting the rest of the world to go out of their way to make everything easier for me would actually not be what I want. I appreciate those charities and publicly funded organizations who help those who need it, but you cannot force empathy. You push people away with this kind of attitude.

And the people who are completely selfish as long as they get what they want don't sway your opinion? I don't see you quoting them for being 'vitriolic'. Way to be objective.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
And the people who are completely selfish as long as they get what they want don't sway your opinion? I don't see you quoting them for being 'vitriolic'. Way to be objective.

Neither you nor I are going to talk the few who are trolling into giving a shit. I give to the charities I can afford to, but the only websites I see that need to be made more accesible are the ones that are needed (gov, public entities/transport, 911, emergency). Otherwise, all I can do is give what I can for those who need it more than I do. People all over are struggling just to get by, I don't see how increasing taxes or passing on costs to customers will help anyone.
 

Shockey

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
2,216
I'm not quite sure how blind people even use a pc, there is narrator on windows but even then trying to find what you want with that is pretty hard. Let alone the internet. I wonder if they will make vocal ads lol :p

Those auto talking ads they have now. Hate those damn things....
 

krotch

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
4,509
It's pretty simple, the few don't outweigh the many. The many don't want to pay for the few, but the few want more. If this goes through, then I expect taxpayer money to be used to purchase care packages for our troops abroad. How about taxpayer money used to pay for their phone cards to call back home, while we are at it.
 

H@RD5

Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
689
Those who wish to use the internet in this fashoin can pay website developers to help their cause, or find a charity that will. Let's not have the government regulate the internet into oblivion.

The ADA is such shit. It does good but is a crock of crap at the same time. Look at all the small mom & pop shops that have to spend 10s of thousands just to meet the bathroom ADA rules.

I love how the government steps in on this but damned if they (1) offer any money to make it happen (2) offer any way to even make it possible.

I mean really. How does one code a website so the blind can use it? :confused:

^this

Just another example of government sticking it's nose where it shouldn't and not focusing on issues of the greatest importance like say jobs . .. .
 

PWMK2

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
3,032
I swear to god, the selfishness of some people these days is outstanding.

No, we don't 'need' to help blind people access the internet. No, they're not 'entitled' to internet access more than anyone else. It isn't about 'entitlement.' If it was, we would be giving blind people free internet access. That's not what we're talking about here. What we are talking about is making websites more accessible for blind users. Blind users can't make these sites more accessible for themselves. Deaf people can't close caption things for themselves either.

Let's say, for example, you get in an accident that wasn't your fault. Some dude t-bones you while you're going through a green light. Your face is completely smashed and you lose sight in both of your eyes. Eventually, you are able to make it back to some semblence of a normal life as well as you can. You learn how to use the computer as a blind person. But your banking company's website is completely inaccessible to blind users. It just simply doesn't work with the navigation software out there, or it is incredibly hard to navigate. Now, you can't do online checking anymore, which is a complete and total pain in the ass all because some dude whose job it is to care about his users couldn't be bothered to do a better job at coding the website.

Of course, it is the people at the bank who are to blame. If they cared about blind users, they would make their site more accessible. But they don't.

Now, I'm not saying every site should have to be accessible for the blind. Like others have said, private websites and websites for businesses which understandably don't have a large blind userbase (hulu, youtube, etc.) need not be made this way.

But banks? Absolutely. And so should many other large corporate websites that have blind users. It's the right thing to do.

But you feel the federal government should legislate your ability to access to these information sources in a way you are physically able to given your impairment despite that not being a right granted to you by the Constitution? I just don't understand where the entitlement stems from, exactly, because the Constitution itself does not entitle you to it.

Like I said, I take issue with this kind of movement on the basis of political principle, not in a fundamental way.

The constitution != every law of the federal government. There are many things we take for granted that have no place in the constitution. Next time you drive down the highway, ask yourself if the right to drive down a highway is mandated in the constitution.

The constitution guarantees a lot of your rights, and everything outside of that obviously isn't a fundamental right. This whole thing isn't about rights, though. It's about being nice to people.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
See, it comes down to interpretation here. I don't think the government should mandate it on non public/gov/emergency websites (decent point about banks, though), HOWEVER, I see no reason why companies can't be ostracized/boycotted by the public for not offering those services. When it affects their bottom line, they will wise up.

It isn't always selfish vs. charitable. IMO it is about over regulating certain areas, like small businesses who cannot afford to put these practices in place. While I think most places should be handicap accessible, I don't think brute force is the way to go.
 

phide

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
16,693
I WANT WEBSITES IN BRAILLE! WITH DAILY UPDATES! :p
There are actually braille readers available. They translate digital text to braille.

And the people who are completely selfish as long as they get what they want don't sway your opinion?
I think you have me pegged all kinds of wrong. I focus energy on Section 508 compliance and WCAG A-level standards when I'm working on a web project. Not because I have to, but because it's generally the right thing to do, and because the potential marketability of content accessibility outweighs the time investment (because, as I said before, it's fairly easy). Simple.

Am I selfish because I don't believe legislative initiatives are the right approach for the issue of content accessibility? Hardly.

It isn't about 'entitlement.'
Entitlement is, in fact, exactly what this is about. See: definition of entitlement.

But banks? Absolutely. And so should many other large corporate websites that have blind users. It's the right thing to do.
Stopping to assist a fellow driver whose car has died on them is the right thing to do. Do we make it a crime not to do so? Is said driver entitled to that aid?

The constitution != every law of the federal government. There are many things we take for granted that have no place in the constitution. Next time you drive down the highway, ask yourself if the right to drive down a highway is mandated in the constitution.
The ability to drive on any roadway is not a right but a privilege. We aren't guaranteed that ability. The ability to take in information or entertainment on a particular website or TV show, too, is also a privilege, government websites exempted (currently). If either medium lacks alternative access for the hearing- or vision-impaired, that's unfortunate. But ask yourself the question of whether it must become mandatory to satisfy a desire (not a specific need) of the impaired and then ask whether legislation is a legitimate approach for solving what is largely an inconsequential issue for the vast majority of U.S. citizens.

I find it very hard to imagine how anyone, even the impaired, could answer "yes" to such a question.
 

krotch

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
4,509
No, we don't 'need' to help blind people access the internet. No, they're not 'entitled' to internet access more than anyone else. It isn't about 'entitlement.' If it was, we would be giving blind people free internet access. That's not what we're talking about here. What we are talking about is making websites more accessible for blind users. Blind users can't make these sites more accessible for themselves. Deaf people can't close caption things for themselves either.

If those who happen to own the site find it a benefit to their company to create handicapped enabled websites, great for them. By no means do I think it should be a requirement for them. Not when there's multiple forms to access the information.

Let's say, for example, you get in an accident that wasn't your fault. Some dude t-bones you while you're going through a green light. Your face is completely smashed and you lose sight in both of your eyes. Eventually, you are able to make it back to some semblence of a normal life as well as you can. You learn how to use the computer as a blind person. But your banking company's website is completely inaccessible to blind users. It just simply doesn't work with the navigation software out there, or it is incredibly hard to navigate. Now, you can't do online checking anymore, which is a complete and total pain in the ass all because some dude whose job it is to care about his users couldn't be bothered to do a better job at coding the website.

If I did become blind, I would never, ever, use such a website. It's already easy to phish non-blind ppl. But it'd be extremely easy to phish blind ppl. I'd much rather go to the bank itself or call.

Of course, it is the people at the bank who are to blame. If they cared about blind users, they would make their site more accessible. But they don't.

Now, I'm not saying every site should have to be accessible for the blind. Like others have said, private websites and websites for businesses which understandably don't have a large blind userbase (hulu, youtube, etc.) need not be made this way.

But banks? Absolutely. And so should many other large corporate websites that have blind users. It's the right thing to do.

According to multiple sites on the web, 3-4% of the US population is legally blind. Maybe it's just me, but that seems like every US website doesn't exactly have a large blind userbase.

I don't know for certain, but a bank aims to make money. I bet it'd cost more for a bank to make a blind enabled website, than what money from blind user business can brought in. The right thing to do is to not make blind enabled websites in that circumstance.

Certain things I can see as a necessity. Like different sized money. Why that hasn't happened yet, I'll never know. Blind enabled website, I don't understand. Not when there are so many other forms of receiving such information that the website would contain. I mean, what were blind ppl doing prior to the non-internet age. Non-blind capable computers.

The constitution != every law of the federal government. There are many things we take for granted that have no place in the constitution. Next time you drive down the highway, ask yourself if the right to drive down a highway is mandated in the constitution.

It's called public safety and defense. How does an ambulance get to the hospital? How does a police officer, fire fighter, EMT, etc get to an emergency? How do National Guard move troops, equipment , etc during times of natural disasters, war time emergencies, etc?

Also, guess who happens to pay for the highways? Those who make use of it. Taxes on gasoline and diesel are used on the highway system.

So tell me, if you want blind accessible websites, who do you think should be paying for it?
 

Netrat33

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,894
so tell me, if you want blind accessible websites, who do you think should be paying for it?

*laughing* dude...seriously. You need to stop talking. It's not that hard to have a site that is 508 complient. It generally falls in line with "good overall webdesign" Shit flash now even supports it. F'ing chill

It's pretty simple, the few don't outweigh the many.
Nice. I love Mob rule! It's so good ya Goose stepper. :rolleyes:
 

darament

n00b
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
41
"Outfitting one movie theater with both captioning for the deaf and descriptive video devices for the blind costs $4,000 to $6,000, said Larry Goldberg, director of media access at WGBH, Boston's public television station, which holds a patent on a movie-captioning system called Rear Window."

This is the only thing I have a little problem with. At what point is going to far on this. Should theatres be required to provide stuff for people who are completely blind? If they aren't then would that be considered discrimination against the completley blind? who knows how far this could go. There needs to be some kind of line that is drawn. at what point should they can just say "sorry, but this isn't a quality of life issue."
 

NickS

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
1,953
And the people who are completely selfish as long as they get what they want don't sway your opinion? I don't see you quoting them for being 'vitriolic'. Way to be objective.

It's not a selfish attitude, its an every man for himself attitude. Some may say thats selfish, I say its not. I'm me and thats what I am. It even stems into political correctness and making people feel equal. People aren't equal. No one is equal to another. Bill Gates is better than a single mom with 6 kids who is on government aid. Yes, that is an extreme case, but even the working mother/father is a better, higher-up person in the hierarchy of society than the non-working mother/father (by choice, that is.. not unforeseen circumstances).

Evidence of this pushing for people to feel equal? Foodstamps are now plastic, so people aren't "ashamed" or made to feel lesser in a grocery store check out line than others. Bullshit.

WIC, great program. Foodstamps and general welfare, fail.
 

NickS

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
1,953
It's even down to a personality/morality level. Some people are better than others. You know people who are just shitty, shady people. You know people who are great, warm and kind people. See where I'm going with this?

This country is a giant fucking vagina now. Everyone is so sensitive and weak and easily-offended. Everyone pussyfoots around issues because they might 'hurt feelings.' Grow a pair, it's your life - take it by the face and wrestle it into what you want it to be. It can be done. Don't wait around for someone to change it for you. Why can't we go back to the good old days where parents actually disciplined their kids without threats of calling child services being made by the bratty little kids that think they have rights. Thankfully, I was brought up the old fashioned way. I respect my parents, I would never talk back to them and up until two years ago I was still afraid of my Dad when he got pissed.
 

riot8ap

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
5,509
I dunno, it seems that enough retards use the internet currently. We don't really need any more do we? :rolleyes: :D
 

END

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2000
Messages
1,227
hello windows has this already no reason for any web site to change anything . lol what a bunch of idiots.
 

krotch

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
4,509
*laughing* dude...seriously. You need to stop talking. It's not that hard to have a site that is 508 complient. It generally falls in line with "good overall webdesign" Shit flash now even supports it. F'ing chill

If your website is nothing more than a few pages, sure, pretty simple. Some websites are extremely complex and would require months of work to become 508 compliant. If your starting a brand new site, then you can streamline the process. If you are converting, you have a lot more time to invested in the process.

As for Flash, it loosely supports it. Now if you get a non-Adobe Flash creation software, there are some that can create fully supported flash content.

Nice. I love Mob rule! It's so good ya Goose stepper. :rolleyes:

Guess what? When you're asking for money from the government, you're dealing with the whole tax paying population.

It's even down to a personality/morality level. Some people are better than others. You know people who are just shitty, shady people. You know people who are great, warm and kind people. See where I'm going with this?

This country is a giant fucking vagina now. Everyone is so sensitive and weak and easily-offended. Everyone pussyfoots around issues because they might 'hurt feelings.' Grow a pair, it's your life - take it by the face and wrestle it into what you want it to be. It can be done. Don't wait around for someone to change it for you. Why can't we go back to the good old days where parents actually disciplined their kids without threats of calling child services being made by the bratty little kids that think they have rights. Thankfully, I was brought up the old fashioned way. I respect my parents, I would never talk back to them and up until two years ago I was still afraid of my Dad when he got pissed.

Everything is pushed onto the government these days. What? They can't petition companies to be 508 compliant? They can't create charties to help fund the conversion of websites to be 508 compliant? According to Netrat33, it's not that hard. Shouldn't be that expensive. lol
 

Shalafi

Fully [H]
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
22,927
Ignoring all the pointless posts in this thread, allow me to bring us back on track.

As a deaf individual, I see the value in certain sites being handicap accessible, but for the most part, the Internet is text based, so it's by and large unneccessary, my only real complaints are sites like Netflix which I can't subscribe to because they provide no subtitles or captions with their streaming service.

For making telephone calls, I use www.sprintip.com to place calls, this works great for me. Basically someone who works for Sprint enters into a chat room with me, I give them the number and they place the call for me, with real time communication being used between me, to the sprint relay, from sprint relay to the other person on the other end of the call, to the sprint relay, then back to me. Works quite well. I usually use this for personal calls and ordering pizza from my favorite pizza place which doesn't have online ordering.

I know other deaf people like using VRS (Video Relay Services) which consist of basically what I described above, only a device connects to your TV and turns it into a video conference, and you contact someone using the VRS of your choice, and then you sign to them and they relay what you are saying to someone else.

They do this online too I believe, with webcams, I am not 100 percent sure, but with text based services, I don't see the need for that, but some deaf people like that.

BTW, to you assholes debating equality, of course nobody is equal, but nobody with a disability that isn't self inflicted asked to be the way they are.
 

Cerulean

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
9,475
Only as long as the government pays for all the programming, upgrades, etcetera directly related to implementing disability support, I'm all cool with that.

Oh wait.. the government doesn't have any money.
 

krotch

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
4,509
Ignoring all the pointless posts in this thread, allow me to bring us back on track.

As a deaf individual, I see the value in certain sites being handicap accessible, but for the most part, the Internet is text based, so it's by and large unneccessary, my only real complaints are sites like Netflix which I can't subscribe to because they provide no subtitles or captions with their streaming service.

For making telephone calls, I use www.sprintip.com to place calls, this works great for me. Basically someone who works for Sprint enters into a chat room with me, I give them the number and they place the call for me, with real time communication being used between me, to the sprint relay, from sprint relay to the other person on the other end of the call, to the sprint relay, then back to me. Works quite well. I usually use this for personal calls and ordering pizza from my favorite pizza place which doesn't have online ordering.

I know other deaf people like using VRS (Video Relay Services) which consist of basically what I described above, only a device connects to your TV and turns it into a video conference, and you contact someone using the VRS of your choice, and then you sign to them and they relay what you are saying to someone else.

They do this online too I believe, with webcams, I am not 100 percent sure, but with text based services, I don't see the need for that, but some deaf people like that.

BTW, to you assholes debating equality, of course nobody is equal, but nobody with a disability that isn't self inflicted asked to be the way they are.

Maybe in the future, you won't even need to use either. You can use a computer based telephone to make your calls. Where the incoming audio will be converted to text and text you input is converted into outgoing audio.

I don't know how good Dragon Naturally Speaking works (accuracy and speed at which it transcribes), but if you put the earpiece up to a computer mic, it might be able to convert to text. Probably use it for Closed Captioning too.

The cost of relay services is $891 million a year (according to Wiki *shrugs*). Once the relay service is paid for, all the leftover money is returned back to the phone providers. Personally, if you're going to take the money, don't return it. Instead, the leftover money can be invested in like bionic ear research or something along those lines. I'd much rather see the problem resolved, than the same hole patched up over and over again.

I don't know how many times I see articles about LCD screens and cameras used to help the blind see again. Crazy surgeries, gene therapies, etc used to help enable the deaf to hear again. Course after seen an article once, it tends to just, disappear and never to be seen again. My guess, funding ran out. Now imagine if they could receive a constant revenue stream from something like the extra cash from the relay service.

Tax me to pay for blind enabled websites. Hell no. Tax me to help fund research to cure the blind. Sure, I'd be down with that. I mean, if your car leaked oil, you keep putting in a new quart every few days or you going to fix the leak?
 

Jon855

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
10,679
Ignoring all the pointless posts in this thread, allow me to bring us back on track.

As a deaf individual, I see the value in certain sites being handicap accessible, but for the most part, the Internet is text based, so it's by and large unneccessary, my only real complaints are sites like Netflix which I can't subscribe to because they provide no subtitles or captions with their streaming service.

For making telephone calls, I use www.sprintip.com to place calls, this works great for me. Basically someone who works for Sprint enters into a chat room with me, I give them the number and they place the call for me, with real time communication being used between me, to the sprint relay, from sprint relay to the other person on the other end of the call, to the sprint relay, then back to me. Works quite well. I usually use this for personal calls and ordering pizza from my favorite pizza place which doesn't have online ordering.

I know other deaf people like using VRS (Video Relay Services) which consist of basically what I described above, only a device connects to your TV and turns it into a video conference, and you contact someone using the VRS of your choice, and then you sign to them and they relay what you are saying to someone else.

They do this online too I believe, with webcams, I am not 100 percent sure, but with text based services, I don't see the need for that, but some deaf people like that.

BTW, to you assholes debating equality, of course nobody is equal, but nobody with a disability that isn't self inflicted asked to be the way they are.

I can comment on several components of your statement regarding Relay Services. Read on below for more.

Maybe in the future, you won't even need to use either. You can use a computer based telephone to make your calls. Where the incoming audio will be converted to text and text you input is converted into outgoing audio.

I don't know how good Dragon Naturally Speaking works (accuracy and speed at which it transcribes), but if you put the earpiece up to a computer mic, it might be able to convert to text. Probably use it for Closed Captioning too.

The cost of relay services is $891 million a year (according to Wiki *shrugs*). Once the relay service is paid for, all the leftover money is returned back to the phone providers. Personally, if you're going to take the money, don't return it. Instead, the leftover money can be invested in like bionic ear research or something along those lines. I'd much rather see the problem resolved, than the same hole patched up over and over again.

I don't know how many times I see articles about LCD screens and cameras used to help the blind see again. Crazy surgeries, gene therapies, etc used to help enable the deaf to hear again. Course after seen an article once, it tends to just, disappear and never to be seen again. My guess, funding ran out. Now imagine if they could receive a constant revenue stream from something like the extra cash from the relay service.

Tax me to pay for blind enabled websites. Hell no. Tax me to help fund research to cure the blind. Sure, I'd be down with that. I mean, if your car leaked oil, you keep putting in a new quart every few days or you going to fix the leak?
Let me also comment on this component regarding the funding portion of the services.


I am deaf and in my two previous employment, I worked for two Relay Services Companies; Viable Communications, Inc. and Sorenson Communications.

- Viable offers Video Relay Service as one stated that could be accessed by a top set hooked up to a tv, and Viable also do provide its own stand alone units frequently known as VPAD and VPAD+ respectfully. In addition to that as one correctly stated that some do offer Video Relay Service / Text to Speech software provided by VRS Providers as such some providers including Viable Communications, Purple Communications, ZVRS Communications and some others amongst do provide this services. Sorenson Communication does not provide any software nor any stand alone units that is capable of conducting Video Relay Services beside their own Top Set TV units known as VP100/VP200 (VP100 has been phased out) however they do provide software as one've stated that could provide text to speech relay services.

Trust me when I say I am more than well versed in these services as I used to support their consumers / services / businesses

Now on to the portion about the funding aspect of the VRS - Yes, it cost so much and personally I feel that it could be well off with lesser funding and it's being reimbursed by NECA which answers to FCC and such regarding the TRS regs.

The FCC oversees the TRS funds and such - these funds are not to be used for R&D, instead they are only to be used for reimbursement of the actual cost to provide these services at cost determined at a rolling basis which is frequently audited and adjusted and proposed by the NECA onwards to the FCC regarding the funding whether it should be cut or increased and such.

Let me state this simply - TRS probably is one of the most wasteful funding that the FCC could and "is required" to by the ADA laws to provide. I don't have a solution but if you want to know more within constrains [legal binding agreement / NDA and such] that I have then I will share what I can.

Oh btw - Rear Windows or whatever is CRAP, I just prefer to watch movies with subtitles over the Rear Windows and the likes.

/Rant...
 

Phoenix333

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,510
How about taking that money that would be wasted on this crap and using it for something like, I don't know, fixing peoples' disabilities? Then the problem becomes moot, doesn't it? How are you ever going to get porn sites to work for blind people until they perfect cybernetic eyes? That's the real problem here.
 

distortion69

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
337
I swear to god, the selfishness of some people these days is outstanding.

No, we don't 'need' to help blind people access the internet. No, they're not 'entitled' to internet access more than anyone else. It isn't about 'entitlement.' If it was, we would be giving blind people free internet access. That's not what we're talking about here. What we are talking about is making websites more accessible for blind users. Blind users can't make these sites more accessible for themselves. Deaf people can't close caption things for themselves either.

Let's say, for example, you get in an accident that wasn't your fault. Some dude t-bones you while you're going through a green light. Your face is completely smashed and you lose sight in both of your eyes. Eventually, you are able to make it back to some semblence of a normal life as well as you can. You learn how to use the computer as a blind person. But your banking company's website is completely inaccessible to blind users. It just simply doesn't work with the navigation software out there, or it is incredibly hard to navigate. Now, you can't do online checking anymore, which is a complete and total pain in the ass all because some dude whose job it is to care about his users couldn't be bothered to do a better job at coding the website.

Of course, it is the people at the bank who are to blame. If they cared about blind users, they would make their site more accessible. But they don't.

Now, I'm not saying every site should have to be accessible for the blind. Like others have said, private websites and websites for businesses which understandably don't have a large blind userbase (hulu, youtube, etc.) need not be made this way.

But banks? Absolutely. And so should many other large corporate websites that have blind users. It's the right thing to do.



The constitution != every law of the federal government. There are many things we take for granted that have no place in the constitution. Next time you drive down the highway, ask yourself if the right to drive down a highway is mandated in the constitution.

The constitution guarantees a lot of your rights, and everything outside of that obviously isn't a fundamental right. This whole thing isn't about rights, though. It's about being nice to people.

It's not selfishness.. it's common sense. If that happened to me, I would CALL the bank on the phone. Is it really that difficult that we need to legislate theft of hard working, nearly broke, tax payer dollars? There are ways of getting the information you need currently without having the internet when it comes to banking transactions.. or living in general..

We lived a long time before the internet was around... It didn't seem to be that big of a problem without it then.Furthermore we lived a long time without the government wiping our ass...

We are near the verge of paying as much interest as we have in tax revenues, and people are talking about blowing it on helping blind people get on the internet to check their bank statement? Are we serious here? What's so wrong with a telephone?

If you think it's a worthy cause, develop a solution... Donate to a charity if you have extra money to do so, or perhaps group together in an advocacy group and call the banks and request this type of change.

However, I know.. you know.. we all know, you are too lazy to do anything about this issue, you are just bullshitting on people. You want to pretend like you have morality, while people out there are actually doing something other than lobbying for everyone else to have to do it. You want to steal from a, and give to b.. and pretend that its everybody else who lacks morals. My family member could be dying from heart disease.. do I really want even a penny of my tax dollars to go towards someone blind being able to check their bank statement? There are far more important things to some people who need their tax dollars than bullshit like this. How much taxes are we going to have to raise, in a system already ridden with deficits to achieve this slave state where we take care of everybody from cradle to grave?

If you really care about this issue, you don't always need the government to do everything.. You can do things about it. There is nothing wrong with standing up for a worthy cause with other individuals who actively want to support this cause.
 

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
(rubbish about paying taxes)

News flash big guy. Handicapped people pay taxes too. We're no more, no less entitled to anything you guys are. Quit making it sound like we're ENTITLED to something. Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Legislation was made for network bandwidth, internet regulations and television and radio airwaves, weren't they? By your logic it'd be ok if I cried "oh noes my tax dollar is being used to pay for things I can't use myself!" right?

No of course not. You're too self-centered and selfish to see beyond your personal needs.
 

Netrat33

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,894
It's not a selfish attitude, its an every man for himself attitude. Some may say thats selfish, I say its not.

News flash! that's the F'ing defination of selfish! :rolleyes: Seriously!? that was your defense!?

Amazes me about the selfishness of people. This same shit happened back in the 70s when the enforced building codes to have handicap accessible ramps and parking spaces. Developers would bitch about “What!? This is going to ruin my designs!” “What!? This is going to cost me thousands to add a ramp” Fuck a war veteran wanting to go into a store because has a flight of steps. Should have thought of that before you had your legs blown off. Tough shit for serving our country right?

The government does these things because of the trying to find best interest of everyone. Period. When it comes to code enforcements of how buildings are made, to the FDA, to whatever, it’s generally for the best interests. Nothing of course is a perfect system, but this is ridiculous in how we can’t look out after our fellow Americans when we have every ability to do so. Shit, Europe already has this in place for any service providing website. Government isn't changing Facebook. Get over it.

Guess what? When you're asking for money from the government, you're dealing with the whole tax paying population.

It’s not like people with disabilities don’t pay taxes either. OMG they have a disability! They must be a complete drain to our society right?

Everything is pushed onto the government these days. What? They can't petition companies to be 508 compliant? They can't create charties to help fund the conversion of websites to be 508 compliant? According to Netrat33, it's not that hard. Shouldn't be that expensive. lol

Disability attorney Lainey Feingold "Fortunately for the millions of Americans with disabilities, making accessibility improvements does not cost a lot of money,"

And I’m in the field of developing websites for clients and we have to have them 508 compliant. Going back and fixing typical service sites does not take that much effort. And we've had to convert some reaaaal shit jobs too. You obviously never made a website since it wouldn’t take MONTHS to go back and update.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
eh, lots of places have been hit with million dollar lawsuits for handicap compliance. And yeah, there can be tons of factors involved, to parking lots, ramps, doors, counter heights and so forth. cost to business is not trivia.
 

phide

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
16,693
The government does these things because of the trying to find best interest of everyone.
And in doing so fail to recognize that they step closer and closer to a socialist state with every piece of legislation, while at the same time failing to achieve that (impossible) goal.

Are you familiar with Gloria Allred, by any chance?
 

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
And in doing so fail to recognize that they step closer and closer to a socialist state with every piece of legislation, while at the same time failing to achieve that (impossible) goal.

Are you familiar with Gloria Allred, by any chance?

Socialist implies equality for all and I agree with you, this ideal is dangerously similar to that ideal, but it's a very unfair label regardless. The handicapped are a very small minority. We could scream on top of our lungs and nothing's going to happen because the healthy majority just don't care. Socialism? I dunno man, I think oppression hits closer to the mark.
 

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
Socialist implies equality for all and I agree with you, this ideal is dangerously similar to that ideal, but it's a very unfair label regardless. The handicapped are a very small minority. We could scream on top of our lungs and nothing's going to happen because the healthy majority just don't care. Socialism? I dunno man, I think oppression hits closer to the mark.

"this ideal is dangerously similar to that ideal"? Erm..

I meant to say his ideal is dangerously similar to socialism.
 

Netrat33

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,894
And in doing so fail to recognize that they step closer and closer to a socialist state with every piece of legislation, while at the same time failing to achieve that (impossible) goal.
Do not skew me talking about safety codes and accessiblity to saying it's socialism. Give me a break. Taking every other bit of the equation out, we're talking about having things handicapped accessible. This is not leading to socialism.

Are you familiar with Gloria Allred, by any chance?

I do not. Looked up a bit. I understand there are extremes and things that are "Just stupid. Use some common sense" This does not fall in that realm of extreme.
 
Top