Blind Web Users Fight, Sue for More Accessible Sites

Blind Web Users Fight, Sue for More Accessible Sites
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
AP
Oct. 3: Chris Danielsen of the National Federation of the Blind in New York demonstrates software used to help the blind surf the Web.
Oct. 3: Chris Danielsen of the National Federation of the Blind in New York demonstrates software used to help the blind surf the Web.
NEW YORK — "Links list dialogue." "Links list view." "Your Account — Two of 164."
This is what the Internet sounds like to Chris Danielsen.
Danielsen is blind. He's using a software program called
JAWS
that converts the text on a Web page into a computerized voice that comes out through a speaker, allowing him to surf the Web using keyboard commands instead
of a mouse — the same way lots of blind people use the Internet.
In this case, his computer is listing all the Web links on the page he's on and telling him that the highlighted link his cursor is on now will take him
to the "Your Account" section on Wal-Mart's Web site.
• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Home Computing Center.
Danielsen, who writes a blog called "
The Voice of the Nation's Blind"
for the
National Federation of the Blind,
says accessing the Internet has been a "huge boon" for blind people.
It's allowed them to accomplish a great number of tasks on their own that would otherwise present difficulties or require the help of a sighted person,
such as banking, buying plane tickets and shopping for things like groceries and music.
But like any evolving technology, accessing the Internet has hardly been a smooth ride for the blind.
Some sites can be difficult to navigate, particularly if they contain relatively few text links and rely more on graphics and other visual elements that
screen-reading software such as Jaws can't interpret.
That's why the NFB, an organization that represents blind people, is suing Target Corp. (
TGT),
saying that its Web site is inaccessible to blind Internet users.
Last month a federal judge in California allowed the NFB's case to proceed, rejecting Target's argument that its Web site wasn't subject to the
Americans With Disabilities Act,
a 1990 law that requires retailers and other public places to make accommodations for people with disabilities. Target argued that the law only covered
physical spaces.
The case, which is entering a pretrial phase called discovery in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, could set an important precedent
for applying federal accessibility law to the Internet.
Target said in a statement that its Web site was "committed to providing an online experience that is accessible to all of our guests. Despite the lawsuit
brought forward by the National Federation of the Blind, we have always and will continue to implement new technologies to our Web site."
John Pare, a spokesman for the NFB, said most Web sites are far easier to navigate than Target's.
In a demonstration of screen-reading software for The Associated Press, Danielsen showed that many links on Target's side were unintelligible to the JAWS
software, and that the final purchase required the use of a mouse, something even the most sophisticated blind Web surfer would have trouble with.
However, he was able to navigate other sites and purchased a CD from Amazon.com (
AMZN).
JAWS, made by Freedom Scientific, is a popular kind of screen-reading software, but there are others, including Window-Eyes, made by GW Micro, and Hal,
made by Dolphin Computer Access.
Many Web sites already have made major progress in becoming accessible to the blind, and some, such as those run by the government, are required to do so
by law.
Yet surfing the Internet is not always worry-free for the blind.
Crista Earl, the head of Web operations for the
American Foundation for the Blind
in New York, said graphics that don't contain textual labels — which can be read by screen-reading software — are a common obstacle for blind Internet users,
as are "forms" that are unlabeled. Forms are the little boxes where you insert data, such as a book title you wanted to search for.
The decision to hold Target's Web site to the same standards of accessibility as its physical store under the Americans with Disabilities Act was considered
a victory by many advocates for the blind, but at the same time others worry that the ruling could be read too narrowly.
Not every business or Web site is subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act, said John D. Kemp., a lawyer with the Washington law firm Powers, Pyles,
Sutter & Verville P.C.
The ADA applies mainly to public places such as restaurants, retailers, movie theaters and health care institutions, explained Kemp, who has long worked
on compliance issues related to disabilities, employment and technology.
For an electronic retailer such as Amazon.com, which has no physical store, the law is unclear, Kemp said.
"There is no well defined policy in this area at all," he said.
However, Kemp noted that many businesses, such as banks, see a strong business rationale for making their sites accessible, and have moved aggressively
to do so.
Meanwhile, other retailers are also moving to adapt their Web sites to screen-reading software. Kelly Groehler, a spokeswoman for Best Buy Co. (
BBY),
says the company has made a number of changes to its site since late last year, including incorporating "alt tags" — or text that labels items like graphics
— into its site.
Best Buy also moved code for drop-down menus to the bottom of the page, where it's less likely to duplicate other elements on the page.
"We're trying to be proactive here," Groehler said. Walmart.com spokeswoman Amy Colella says the site has made sure it is "reasonably accessible" to the
blind.
Other retailers are making similar efforts, but it remains a challenge due to the continuing evolution in the technologies used by blind people to surf
the Internet, says Scott Silverman, executive director of Shop.org, a division of the National Retail Federation for online retailers.
"As the retailers' Web sites continue to evolve to stay competitive in the marketplace, sometimes the technologies necessary to do that are a little bit
ahead of where the screen-readers are," Silverman said. "It's a very fast-moving environment. Retailers want to serve all their customers, including blind
people."
Internet search giant Google Inc. (
GOOG)
is getting into the act as well. In July it launched a
project
to identify and rank Web sites that offer significant accessibility to the blind.
As more information and services migrate online, keeping access open to it is of paramount importance to advocates for the blind.
"The blind have more access to information than they ever had in history — but that's only true to the extent that Web accessibility is maintained," Danielsen
said. "The technology is out there, and we don't need barriers to be put in our way. Give us a way in."

computers can help coaches in the NBA

Oct 23, 2006 — NEW YORK (Reuters) - Shaquille O'Neal may be one of the best basketball players on the planet, but he should have been benched in this year'sNational Basketball Association championships.
Or so concludes a new statistical measurement developed by Lenovo Group Ltd. the world's third-largest personal computer maker. Introduced by Lenovo andthe NBA on Monday, the statistic is supposed show which five players combine to make the best team on the court at any one time.
In June's NBA finals, for instance, the Lenovo Stat showed the best combination for the champion Miami Heat included Dwyane Wade, James Posey, Gary Payton,Antoine Walker, and Alonzo Mourning.
Missing from the list is O'Neal, the 7'1" Miami Heat center who is an 11-times NBA All-Star and named one of the 50 Greatest Players in league history.But it was with Mourning — rather than O'Neal — that the Heat had the greatest point advantage during the championships, according to the Lenovo Stat.
Lenovo is launching the statistic as part of a new multi-year marketing partnership with the NBA. Under the partnership, Lenovo will place notebook anddesktop computers in all 30 NBA arenas for use by coaches and referees.
NBA Commissioner David Stern, who said the statistic would give coaches "enormous additional data," declined to comment on the conclusion about O'Neal.
"Shaq is a friend of mine," he joked.

laser chips can replace wires in your PC

'Laser Chips' Could Replace Wires in Your PC
James Niccolai, IDG News Service
Researchers from Intel and the University of California at Santa Barbara have found a way to build low-cost "laser chips" that could eventually shuttledata around PCs at much higher speeds than today's copper wire interconnects.
The researchers combined the properties of a compound semiconductor material called indium phosphide, which emits light constantly, and silicon, which canbe used to amplify and direct that light. They sandwiched the materials together to create a single device that can be manufactured using standard chip-makingtechniques.
The breakthrough, announced today, is significant because it could help the interconnect technologies that carry data between components in PCs and serverskeep pace with the rapid advances in the processing power of the chips themselves, the researchers said.
What It Means
"This could bring low-cost, terabit-level optical 'data pipes' inside future computers and help make possible a new era of high-performance computing applications,"said Mario Paniccia, director of Intel's Photonics Technology Lab, in a statement.
The work may be several years away from commercialization, but the researchers expect eventually to be able to put dozens or even hundreds of lasers ona single chip, they said.
Indium phosphide is already widely used to make lasers for fiber-optic networks, but the cost of assembling and aligning the lasers makes them too expensivefor the high-volume PC business. Silicon, on the other hand, can amplify and control light and could be used more affordably, but it is not an efficientgenerator of light itself.
How It Works: 'Glass Glue'
The researchers figured out a way to combine the two materials to build a "hybrid silicon laser" that can be manufactured using Intel's standard manufacturingtechniques, keeping costs relatively low.
To make the silicon laser, they created a thin oxide layer roughly 25 atoms thick on the surface of each material. They then heated the oxide and pressedthe two layers together, forming a single chip with a "glass glue" between them. Applying a voltage to the device generates light from the indium phosphide,which passes through the joining layer to be guided and controlled by the silicon.
The laser light can send data between computer components at extremely high speed. This can be done using a "silicon optical modulator," which effectivelyturns the laser beam on and off at very high speeds to represent the 1s and 0s of computer code.
Intel has already demonstrated a silicon modulator that can transmit data at up to 10 gigabits per second. Figuring out how to make the hybrid silicon laserwas the last big barrier to using silicon-based optical devices in computers and data centers, the researchers said.
That capability becomes more pressing as engineers design processors with multiple cores--just two or four today but tens or hundreds in the near future,Paniccia said during a conference call with reporters.
Copper Outdated
"That type of terascale computing will need terascale information moving into and out of servers to keep the chips fed with data, which is extremely difficultto do on copper," he said.
Most data moving farther than 100 meters travels over optical cables today, but the high cost of photonics prohibits its use for shorter distances, wherecopper prevails for data connections within rooms or between motherboards, Paniccia said.
"What we're been working on is to siliconize photonics, bringing volume economics to optical communications," he said. "It's comparable to the breakthroughfrom the vacuum tube to the first planar integrated circuit, in that it allows you to build things at a size and cost that fundamentally weren't availablebefore."
Once engineers can use a low-cost, high-bandwidth optical interconnect, they will be able to create entirely new computer designs, such as remote memory,a design that stores data up to 2 feet away from a processor instead of the current standard of 6 inches, he said. That architecture would radically changethe cooling requirements and form factors of computer design.
As a next step, the researchers must find easier ways to manufacture this electrically pumped hybrid silicon laser, and then figure out how to combine iton a single chip with a standard computing processor, he said. Once they achieve that, binary data will be able to flow as electrons, then protons, andback again, enabling enormous rates of speed and efficiency.
Ben Ames of IDG News Service contributed to this report.

congress tries to overhall cable

Senior EditorAnush Yegyazarian
In short order, we'll see practically no difference between much of what AT&T and Verizon offer and what Cablevision and Time Warner do. So it makes littlesense to have one set of rules for the first two companies and another set for the other two--slowing down deployment of IPTV and other new services inthe process. Acknowledging these facts, Congress wants to unravel the tangled web of existing laws, simplifying some, doing away with others, and in somecases creating national standards that would replace state and local laws. The new laws would apply to each of these companies more or less in the sameway, based on their video service plans.
It's an important and worthy goal. Reaching that goal won't be easy, given the complexity of the issues and the sheer volume of regulations that currentlyexist. The House of Representatives took that into account when it crafted its targeted reform bill, the Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and EnhancementAct of 2006 (H.R. 5252), which it passed in June; I discussed a slightly earlier version of this bill in my May column:"A Gated Net, the Sequel"
The bill focuses primarily on the video franchise process, with minor attention to VoIP service, net neutrality issues, and cities or states that offerresidents such services on their own.
The Senate took the House bill and completely revamped it in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. What came out of that committee wasthree times as long as what went in, and the bill even had a new name, the Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act of 2006, or simplythe Communications Act of 2006. It reworks the cable/video franchise process, addresses net neutrality, and goes on to cover the universal service fund,cell phone taxes, the digital TV transition, communications access for troops overseas, online child protection, and much more.
Given the breadth of the Communications Act, I think it's unlikely to be passed by the Senate and reconsidered by the House by the end of this year's legislativesession (especially since this is an election year). However, the two bills give us concrete points from which to evaluate what Congress intends, and whetherthe reforms would have the right impact.
Get Your IPTV Faster
Simplifying and expediting the video franchise process so that the market can get IPTV and greater video service competition is a primary goal of each bill.The House bill essentially does away with the local franchise system, making the FCC the clearing house for video franchise licenses across the country.Local government still receives its share of the licensing fee pot, and companies must abide by local construction/zoning laws as they build out.
The Senate takes a different tack: In its bill the local franchise system still exists, but a national, standardized form is required for any location.So potential licensees still have to send the forms to each location they want to operate in, and wait to hear in each case, but the paperwork should bemore easily filed.
In both cases, approval is practically a given if you've completed the paperwork correctly, and decisions are rendered fairly quickly.
The Senate's nod to local government is nice; honestly, though, given that we are dealing with national operations, to me it makes more sense to do thison a national scale. Because local laws must still be obeyed and local government still receives its revenue, with the original House bill local agencieswould get what they need and the process would better achieve its national-level streamlining goals. However, both approaches still treat satellite servicedifferently than cable and IPTV, which must change in the long run.
Net Neutrality, Sort of but Not Really
Consumer advocates and numerous like-minded organizations have been increasingly trying to get Congress to pay attention to--and protect--network neutrality.Net neutrality advocates seek to ensure that any type of data traffic on the Internet is treated the same way, without some bits and bytes receiving preferentialtreatment because the originators paid for express service.
Congress has definitely turned its attention to the matter, but neither of the current bills accomplishes what net neutrality advocates hope for. The Housebill, amended from the version that came out of committee, includes language that codifies some general principles the FCC sent out in a press releaselast year; see my February column for details:A Gated Internet
The FCC discussed in a general way what consumers are entitled to, and addressed the minimum level playing field that network providers must offer.
The Senate's version goes a bit further with a provision called the Internet Consumer Bill of Rights, which is more detailed than the FCC statement butmore or less covers the same ground. However, the Senate version includes language preventing local, state, and federal government, along with ISPs andnetwork providers, from discriminating and limiting or restricting consumer access based on religious, political, or similar content.
Though that's a nice safeguard, it really doesn't get at the heart of the problem: If network providers can regulate data packets based on who has paidfor faster service, then established players with money have an edge and can marginalize innovative but cash-poor newcomers that lack the resources toobtain the fastest service for their sites. Moreover, nothing in the Senate or House bills would prevent, for example, a network provider that offers itsown VoIP service from limiting or downgrading a competitor's service. If that provider doesn't actually make it impossible for a customer to use the rivalVoIP service, it is safe under both bills.
As I've said before, I have no objection to network providers raising rates for bandwidth-heavy sites, such as increasingly popular video sites. Heck, Iwouldn't object to a prioritization of certain kinds of traffic that need uninterrupted service to be of true value--such as video and music streaming--aslong as it applied across the board. I'd even be willing to pay for it as a consumer if such services were very important to me.
But I don't want network providers deciding which content and service sites live or die--which would be the de facto state of affairs if such providerscan regulate the speed of a site's traffic based on a premium they charge site owners. Yes, I could go to a sports or shopping site that doesn't pay thepremium, as nothing prevents me from typing in a URL, but if my experience at such a site is worse than at rival sites that enjoy the faster service, Iwill eventually stop visiting the slower sites. That's what the providers implicitly sell.
Kids Get Label Protection
The Senate's bill also dips its toes into online child protection waters. As I've mentioned, I support the goal. But the Senate's provision seems too vagueand too broad (note that significant portions of this provision have been introduced separately as the bill S. 3499 and its House equivalent, H. R. 5749,and S. 3432).
First, it prohibits Web sites that are primarily commercial from showing sexually explicit material on the front or home page of its site. So far, so good--there'snothing wrong with having a welcome page with no potentially harmful material and even some warning of what's within so that those visitors who wish toavoid the content can do so.
Then it directs the FTC to create a rating system with the aid of the Attorney General that sites with sexually explicit content would have to display,either as part of the site's code or as a symbol on the page so that visitors would be warned. The intent is to make it easier for visitors to know whenthey've stumbled on such a site, and to allow Internet filters to work more effectively. On the face of it, this seems like a good idea, or at least onethat isn't all that bad.
The problem comes from the definitions of "sexually explicit," and the fact that serious criminal penalties are attached. The language in this bill, asthe Center for Democracy and Technology points out in its letter to senators, mirrors that of the Child Online Protection Act; this act ended up embroiledin legal challenges, and the Supreme Court essentially struck it down; see my April 2004 column for details:"Your Right to X-Rated Sites"
Everyone knows that Congress intends to target porn sites. But the wording of the bill makes it apply to any site with material deemed to be "sexually explicit"and "primarily commercial." A health site focusing on STDs would fall under this umbrella if it had banner ads, for example. And while I would agree that8-year-olds shouldn't be looking at such a site, a 15- or 16-year-old could have very good reasons to take a look and should be able to get such information.
Worse, however, is the potential chilling effect on legal speech. If I ran a health site and was doing it on my own time--and mostly on my own dime--I wouldlikely either slap the equivalent of an adults-only label on it to avoid potential problems or shut it down for fear that I wouldn't rate it appropriatelyand get prosecuted. Even if only a small percentage of site owners chose to do that, it would cause significant harm.
Moreover, a large number of porn sites aren't even based in the United States (the CDT claims that over half are in other countries) and wouldn't be affectedby the legislation anyway.
But Wait, There's More!
The Senate includes a bunch of other items in its bill. For example, the bill revamps the universal service fund, which is supposed to help underservedareas and customers get telecommunications service. Under the bill, the fund would be used explicitly for broadband service, to encourage rollout. TheFCC cancelled collection of the USF fee with DSL service; this act would bring the fee back and tack the extra $1 to $3 dollars onto cable and other high-speedbroadband services as well. On the plus side, the Senate bill would make the moratorium on Internet-access taxes permanent, and would introduce a similarmoratorium on cell-phone-access and mobile-services taxes.
Both the House and the Senate bills also help cities and other local agencies that want to provide broadband, wireless, video and other services to theirresidents. The House bill simply overrules state or local laws that would prohibit towns and cities from offering such services. The Senate bill is morecumbersome, and while it would prevent state laws from prohibiting municipal services, it strongly encourages cities and towns to work with a private companyto provide such services, and makes the local government work hard to justify not working with a private company.
Finally, the Senate bill addresses the digital TV transition. It provides for advertisements, hotlines, labels, and other information for the public asthe transition progresses; it also sets out to let people know the whens and whats, including information about the subsidy program for converter boxesthat will allow people to watch digital TV when analog stations stop broadcasting. More important, however, it also authorizes the FCC to enact a broadcastflag to protect digital, copyrighted content (which courts said the FCC couldn't do without explicit congressional approval) and opens the door for similarprotection in digital radio.
All in all, it's quite the lengthy bill, with many pluses and minuses. The senators were even prepared for it to be challenged (if it passes at all): Itcontains a provision that if one portion is challenged and is struck down by the Supreme Court, none of the other parts will be affected. My bet is thatthe provision will stay if this thing is passed into law in the next year.
Have a question or comment? Write to Anush Yegyazarian:techgov@pcworld.com

securing credit card data

This is an interesting letter I got from a company im signed up with.
So many of credit cards have been stolen, because people working for corprit industries leave there laptops with over 100000 subscriber's contact information including there social ensurance number.
Recently, it seems that on any given day, there's a story in the news detailing how company X or company Y has reported the loss or theft of tens ofthousands of credit card records. Backup tapes loaded with transaction data lost in the mail. Laptops filled with customer records swiped from trunks ofcars. Card numbers swiped out of thin air as they move between POS systems and servers over WiFi networks. It's a growing problem.
If your business accepts credit cards, it's more important than ever make sure that you're doing things the right way. Specifically, you have to makesure that your efforts to secure card data are compliant with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS). To learn more,click hereto download a FREE copy the whitepaper "Lessons Learned: Top Reasons for PCI Audit Failure and How To Avoid Them",available now via IDG Connect compliments of CIO and VeriSign. It's a must read!

should u trust ur ISP?

Ok, this is a article I had for awhile now, but I found it to be really interesting. So many ppl believe that there ISP will always keep there subscribers privacy, but this isn't always the case.
Well, let me know what u think after reading this article....
August 30th, 2006
Consumer Watch: Is Your ISP Helping the Feds Spy on You?
Senior EditorYardena Arar
As a longtime DSL customer of the ISP now known as AT&T, I've been following with concern the coverage of AT&T's recently revised privacy policy. It seemsto indicate that I shouldn't expect much from it in terms of safeguarding my personal information--and I'm seriously debating whether to express my displeasureby jumping ship.
AT&T's reworked privacy policy asserts that the company owns customer records--even the e-mail addresses of people with whom I correspond--and appears toallow considerable leeway in what AT&T can do with this information. Coming in the wake of allegations that the company has been handing over phone recordsto the National Security Agency, the privacy policy change is troubling.
Company spokesperson Walt Sharp says AT&T isn't doing anything other ISPs aren't. "Our policy is consistent with the policies of other major corporationsand with others in the industry," he says.
But I found that not all ISP privacy policies are created equal. As explained below, your best chances for keeping your personal information and onlineactivities private may be to go with a cable operator for Internet access.
AT&T's Changes
AT&T's controversial privacy policy change, which took effect in late June, applies only to its broadband Internet access partnership with Yahoo and toits video services. "These kinds of services don't fall under the traditional telecom privacy law that's in place," says Ari Schwartz, deputy directorof the Center for Democracy and Technology. "Telecom [privacy] laws cover only voice, not data." But data is protected if you use a cable Internet provider--lawsrestrict those companies from disclosing it.
The most startling revision to the policy is found under the "Legal Obligations/Fraud" heading: "While your Account Information may be personal to you,these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T. As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests,safeguard others, or respond to legal process."
Elsewhere in the document, your Account Information is defined as including not just contact data (your name, address, phone number, and e-mail address--infothe company needs to send you bills), but records on the services you use, your transactions (such as online purchases) and service charges, the equipmentand software you're using, and even "your Social Security number and/or credit card information, passwords, and usernames." I have difficulty getting myhead around the notion that my Social Security number is now an AT&T business record. Read the policy in all its legalistic glory:AT&T Privacy Policy
Another part of the "Legal Obligations/Fraud" section that sets off alarm bells is a sentence saying that AT&T can use "your information" to "investigate,prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities...or as otherwise required or permitted by law." If all that isn't a blank check to give out my information(especially the "permitted by" part), I don't know what is.
Cable's Safeguards
Contrast this with the privacy policy for Comcast's high-speed Internet service (AT&T Yahoo's principal competitor in my neck of the woods):Comcast.net Privacy Policy
You'll find this sentence: "Comcast considers the personally identifiable information contained in our business records to be confidential." Sure, it'sstill part of a business record, but the whole tenor of the statement is markedly different from AT&T's pronouncement. And it's followed by a sentencein which Comcast says it can disclose a customer's personal information only in certain cases--to conduct business related to the customer's services,if "required by law or legal process," or for mailing lists (if the subscriber doesn't opt out).
Time Warner Cable's privacy policy page specifically references several laws that the policy complies with: The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,the Electronic Communications Policy Act of 1986, and the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act of 1998. In most regards, Time WarnerCable's privacy policy is similar to Comcast's.
"We have all kinds of privacy laws that don't make any sense," Schwartz says of the situation. "They're based on how the information is being communicatedrather than the type of information."
An example of how privacy requirements vary based on the delivery mechanism has to do with video. The confidentiality of records of video rentals from Blockbusterand its competitors is strictly protected by the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (enacted after a newspaper disclosed the video-rental records ofSupreme Court nominee Robert Bork). Schwartz says it's likely that law would also apply to DVD rentals from companies such as Netflix. But AT&T's video-on-demandtransactions, which the company now classifies as business records, may not be covered by the law.
Privacy Laws Coming
U.S. Representatives Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) are working on bills to address these contradictions, and Senator Hillary Clinton(D-New York) has called for a privacy bill of rights. Schwartz says the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission are examiningthe issue. But for now, if you prefer to keep your Internet activities and video-viewing habits private, opt for cable.
For more on this subject, read Anush Yegyazarian's June Tech.gov column:"Your Privacy Under Siege"