Re: Enterprise software
You don't state your source for these statements, but you appear to quotetoggle quoted messageShow quoted text
them to support your argument in another post for employee passivity. In my
experience, disabled employees who are too timid to assert their adaptive
needs suffer more harm than if they resign themselves to limits driven by
fear of job loss. Agreed, it is important to know what the limits of
accessibility may be in a particular area, which is perhaps what you're
suggesting, but you go too far. Nothing damages morale like passivity, and
nothing impairs the respect an employee can earn than inability to work
productively with the employer's software.
Note that a company as big as Oracle, which produces not only its eponymous
database but also PeopleSoft, should be held accountable for their
accessibility, just as Microsoft has been. This may be something for the
ACB, NFB, the Justice Department and other organizations to take up.
Meanwhile, employees who are harmed by their limited accessibility should
ensure their supervisors know, and accommodations can be demanded.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
On Behalf Of email@example.com
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 11:52 AM
Subject: Fwd: Enterprise software
---- Original message ----
Have you asked your union to investigate compliance issues?specific contract violations, but can also assist an employee whose working
conditions are bad where those conditions are violating organizational
policies, or state or federal labor laws, workplace health and safety, ADA,
and so forth.
historically been designed to be accessible are made minimally accessible
primarily for purposes of legal compliance (to minimize the company's
exposure to litigation) in newer versions. However, there may not be very
many visually impaired people that are actually able to use such products in
a productive or effective manner directly via the standard interface.
Jfw mailing list