advocacy

Fifty Years of Hard-Won Rights Are on the Line: The Fight to Save Section 504

by

Published in support of the National Federation of the Blind‘s March 2026 call to action.

There is a lawsuit moving quietly through the American legal system right now that could undo five decades of civil rights progress for tens of millions of disabled Americans. It is called Texas v. Kennedy, and if you haven’t heard of it yet, that is exactly the problem.

The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) is sounding the alarm — and asking all of us, disabled or not, to pick up the phone and write the email. Here is why this matters, what is at stake, and exactly what you can do about it today.

The Law That Changed Everything

In 1973, Congress passed Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — the first federal law in American history to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. Its principle was simple and radical: no person with a disability could be excluded from, denied the benefits of, or discriminated against in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

In the decades since, Section 504 has meant that a blind child has the legal right to accessible materials in a federally funded school. That a wheelchair user cannot be turned away from a government building. That a disabled employee at a federally funded organization has recourse against discrimination. It was the direct legal precursor to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 — one of the most important civil rights laws ever enacted in this country.

Section 504 is not a technicality. It is the legal backbone of disabled life in America.

What Texas v. Kennedy Threatens

The Texas v. Kennedy lawsuit, filed by a coalition of nine states led by Texas, challenges the federal government’s authority to enforce Section 504 as currently written and applied. According to the NFB’s official call to action issued in March 2026, the lawsuit “risks weakening or eliminating key protections that blind people in the United States rely on every day,” endangering access to “education, employment, public services, and other essential opportunities.” [National Federation of the Blind, March 2026]

If the plaintiffs prevail, the federal government’s ability to require accessibility accommodations, enforce non-discrimination standards, and hold federally funded institutions accountable could be dramatically curtailed. Schools could reduce or eliminate accommodations for disabled students. Employers at federally funded institutions could discriminate against disabled workers. Public services millions of people depend upon every day could become legally inaccessible without meaningful federal recourse.

The implications reach beyond Section 504 itself. The legal theory at the heart of this case — that federal authority to attach civil rights conditions to federal funding is constitutionally limited — could set a precedent that weakens enforcement of other civil rights statutes as well. This is not simply a disability rights issue. It is a civil rights issue for every American.

The Nine States Behind This Lawsuit

The following nine states are currently party to Texas v. Kennedy:

  • Texas
  • Alaska
  • Florida
  • Indiana
  • Kansas
  • Louisiana
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • South Dakota

The NFB has already organized nine of its state affiliates to write directly to their respective attorneys general urging withdrawal from the case. [NFB Letter from Nine Affiliates, March 2026] Now it is time for the broader public to join that effort.

Why Your Letter or Call Can Actually Change the Outcome

It is easy to feel that a single email cannot change the course of a federal lawsuit. But that thinking misunderstands how political and legal pressure actually works.

Attorneys general and governors are elected officials. They are acutely sensitive to constituent opinion, organized public pressure, and the reputational cost of being seen as attacking the civil rights of disabled citizens. When thousands of letters arrive, when inboxes fill and phone lines ring, when local and national media begin covering a public outcry, political calculations change. Officials who joined this lawsuit made a choice. Sustained constituent pressure helps them make a different one.

Beyond the direct political impact, a documented record of public opposition shapes how officials talk about the case publicly, how they respond to press inquiries, and whether withdrawal begins to look like the politically prudent path. The history of American civil rights is full of moments where ordinary people writing ordinary letters tipped the balance. This is one of those moments.

If You Live in One of the Nine States: Contact Your Officials Now

If you are a resident of any of the nine states party to this lawsuit, your message carries the most direct political weight. Please contact your state attorney general and urge them to withdraw your state from Texas v. Kennedy immediately.

Here are the direct contact emails provided by the NFB [NFB Call to Action, March 2026]:

When you call or write, here is what to say (adapted from the NFB’s suggested message [NFB, March 2026]):

“Hello, my name is [Your Name], and I am a constituent. I am writing to urge you to withdraw our state from the Texas v. Kennedy lawsuit. This lawsuit threatens Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — a critical civil rights protection that ensures equal access for blind and disabled Americans in education, employment, and public life. Weakening Section 504 would cause real, lasting harm to real people in our state. Please take immediate action to remove us from this harmful lawsuit. Thank you.”

Make it personal if you can. Tell them about a family member who depends on accessible education. A friend who relies on workplace accommodations. A neighbor whose independence would be threatened. Officials remember letters that put a human face on the law.

If You Live Outside the Nine States: Contact Texas Directly

Texas is the lead plaintiff and the political engine driving this lawsuit. Even if you are not a Texan, contacting the Texas Attorney General’s office sends a clear signal that this case has drawn national attention and national opposition.

Texas Attorney General: kenneth.paxton@oag.texas.gov

Tell them that people across the country are watching this case, and that the disability community — and everyone who supports civil rights — expects better.

Share This. Amplify This. Don’t Wait.

The NFB’s call to action is clear: “Your voice is critical. Every message sent and every phone call made helps demonstrate that blind Americans will not stand by while our civil rights are threatened.” [NFB, March 2026]

But this fight belongs to all of us. Forward this article. Post it. Print it out for someone who needs it. Bring it up at your church, your school, your community organization. The officials who signed their states onto this lawsuit are counting on public silence. Let’s make sure they don’t get it.

Section 504 is a promise America made to its disabled citizens fifty years ago. Let’s hold the line together.

Sources & Further Reading

For more information, contact the National Federation of the Blind at 410-659-9314 or visit nfb.org.

The Digital Door Is Closing on Disabled Americans: Please Help Us Keep It Open

by

Imagine you are blind. Your child has a disability. The school district has just posted crucial updates to its website about your son’s Individualized Education Program — his IEP, the legally mandated document that governs every support, accommodation, and service your child is supposed to receive in school. You open the site. Your screen reader — the software that speaks text aloud so you can navigate a world built for sighted people — hits a wall. Images have no descriptions. Forms won’t load. Buttons have no labels. You click again and again, trapped in a digital maze with no exit.

Now imagine learning that your tax dollars paid for that website.

This is not a hypothetical. This is the daily reality for millions of Americans with disabilities. And right now, the federal government is moving to weaken a rule that was specifically designed to end this kind of exclusion.

We are asking you — disabled people, parents, family members, friends, teachers, healthcare workers, religious leaders, and every person of conscience — to take one action: request a virtual meeting with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and tell them to leave the 2024 Title II accessibility rule intact.

Click here to request a meeting.

What Is Happening and Why It Matters

In April 2024, after decades of advocacy by disabled people and their allies, the U.S. Department of Justice finalized a rule under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requiring state and local governments to make their websites and mobile applications accessible to people with disabilities. The technical standard adopted — the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, version 2.1, Level AA (known as WCAG 2.1 AA) — is an internationally recognized benchmark. For large government entities serving populations of 50,000 or more, the compliance deadline is April 24, 2026.

This rule was hard-won. The DOJ has recognized since at least 2003 that state and local government websites must be accessible under the ADA. The 2024 rule finally put concrete, enforceable teeth into that obligation.

But on February 13, 2026, OIRA — the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an arm of the Office of Management and Budget — published a notice revealing that the Department of Justice had submitted a revised rule to OIRA as an “Interim Final Rule,” or IFR. Unlike a proposed rulemaking, an IFR does not require a public comment period. The public has not been shown what revisions are being proposed. This has never been done before with an accessibility regulation.

The changes could push back or eliminate the April 2026 deadline. They could hollow out other requirements. No one outside the agencies knows yet.

What we do know is this: anyone can request a virtual meeting with OIRA under Executive Order 12866 to explain why the rule matters and should not be changed. The agency is not required to grant a meeting, and a meeting does not guarantee an outcome. But if thousands of people and organizations step forward, their voices will be on the record — and in any future legal challenge to changes in the rule, that record may matter enormously.

The deadline is urgent. The April 24 compliance date for large governments is weeks away.

The Price of Inaccessibility: A Door Slammed in Your Face

When a government website is inaccessible to a blind person, it isn’t a minor inconvenience. It is the digital equivalent of a flight of stairs at the entrance of a government building — it says, without apology, you do not belong here.

Seven out of ten blind people report being unable to access information and services through government websites. Two-thirds of internet transactions initiated by people with vision impairments end in abandonment because the websites they visit are not accessible enough.

Consider what those transactions represent. They are not online shopping. They are applications for Medicaid. They are searches for food assistance. They are registration for school services for disabled children. They are requests for healthcare accommodations. They are the mechanisms through which citizens — including disabled citizens who are fully taxpaying members of their communities — participate in public life.

Inaccessible websites and mobile apps can make it difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to access government services, like ordering mail-in ballots or getting tax information, that are quickly and easily available to other members of the public online. They can keep people with disabilities from joining or fully participating in civic or other community events like town meetings or programs at their child’s school.

The harm is not abstract. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in at least seven states, blind residents said they were unable to register for the vaccine through their state or local governments without help. Phone alternatives, when available, were beset with long hold times and were not available at all hours like websites. “This is outrageous,” declared one disability advocate at the time, noting that blind people were being denied the ability to access something to get vaccinated during a public health emergency.

The Taxpayer Injustice

Here is something that should make every American’s blood boil, regardless of disability status.

The overwhelming majority of state and local government websites — the portals that serve parks departments, public schools, health departments, voting offices, libraries, transit authorities, courts, and social services — are funded by taxpayers. Property taxes. Sales taxes. Income taxes. Every resident pays into the system that builds and maintains these digital public squares.

Blind taxpayers pay these taxes. Deaf taxpayers pay these taxes. People with physical, cognitive, and neurological disabilities pay these taxes. And then, in far too many cases, they are locked out of the very websites and apps their money built.

This is not just bad policy. It is a profound ethical failure. It is taxation without representation. It is saying to an entire class of citizens: you will fund this, but you will not be allowed to use it.

The 2024 rule was an attempt to right this wrong — to ensure that when government spends public money on digital infrastructure, all the public can actually use it. Weakening or delaying this rule is a choice to perpetuate that injustice.

When Inaccessibility Has Real Consequences: Maria’s Story

Maria, a blind mother of two in a mid-sized American city, spent three days trying to access her daughter’s school district website after her daughter — who has a learning disability — was referred for a special education evaluation. The site, like most school district websites of its era, was built without accessibility in mind.

The forms to request records were PDF images — effectively photographs of documents, invisible to a screen reader. The contact directory was a graphic with no text alternative. The link to the district’s special education office was buried in a nested navigation menu that her screen reader could not parse. When she finally found a phone number and called, she was told to visit the website.

Maria’s story is representative. Administrative burdens — including inaccessible and poorly designed websites and complex application processes — cause real, lasting harm to disabled Americans, making it difficult to navigate a system that is supposed to help them cover basic necessities such as food, housing, and medical treatments. For a blind parent trying to advocate for a disabled child in a system that was never built with either of them in mind, the barriers compound each other into something that can feel insurmountable.

Maria eventually got help — from a sighted neighbor who could access the forms on her behalf. But consider what that means. A blind mother, exercising her legal rights on behalf of her disabled child, was forced to surrender her privacy and independence to a third party because a taxpayer-funded website could not do what basic accessibility standards would have required. Her child’s educational rights, her own dignity, and her family’s confidentiality were all casualties of inaccessibility.

When Accessibility Is Won: Angela Fowler’s Story

The story does not have to end in barriers. When accessibility is fought for and won, careers are saved, lives change, and the principle of equal access becomes real rather than rhetorical.

Angela Fowler had worked hard her entire life. She was a longtime member of the National Federation of the Blind, and she had earned a provisional job offer from an insurance carrier — contingent on passing California’s online insurance agent licensing exam. It should have been the next step in a promising career. Instead, it became a wall.

When Fowler sat down to take the state-administered exam, she discovered that the online testing platform used by the California Department of Insurance was completely inaccessible to her screen reader. She could not navigate it. She could not take the test. And when she asked the state to simply make the platform accessible — as California’s own disability access laws required — she was told she would first need to submit her private medical records to justify using a screen reader. Nondisabled applicants were not required to do anything of the sort. The process dragged on. The job offer she had worked toward disappeared.

In 2021, Fowler, joined by a second blind applicant named Miguel Mendez and later the National Federation of the Blind, filed suit against the California Department of Insurance and its testing vendor, PSI Services LLC. The case, Fowler et al. v. PSI Services LLC and California Department of Insurance, was a landmark disability rights action. It argued the obvious: that a state-run licensing examination system must be independently usable by blind applicants who use screen readers — without extra hoops, without burdensome medical documentation requirements, and without segregation from the testing experience available to everyone else.

In August 2024, the case settled. Under the agreement, the California Department of Insurance agreed to no longer require blind or low-vision test-takers who use screen access software to first provide medical documentation. Blind and low-vision test-takers who use screen readers gained access to the same examination scheduling options as those offered to others without disabilities.

NFB President Mark Riccobono called it a meaningful step toward a society that provides equal opportunity to everyone. Attorney Timothy Elder of TRE Legal Practice put it plainly: this case establishes that people who depend on assistive technology should not need a doctor’s note before they can expect an accessibly designed online exam.

Angela Fowler lost the job she had earned. But her fight — her refusal to accept that a government-run system could simply exclude her — ensured that the next blind person who wants to become an insurance agent in California will not face what she faced. That is what accessibility wins look like. That is what is at stake.

The 2024 rule was not asking for perfection. It was asking for a reasonable, internationally recognized standard. It was asking that government — of the people, by the people, for all of the people — actually serve all of the people.

A Word to Every Parent

If you have a disabled child, this message is for you.

You already know what it means to fight for your child in systems that were not built for them. You’ve sat in IEP meetings, argued with insurance companies, driven across town to accessible playgrounds, and spent countless hours researching, advocating, and never giving up.

The 2024 rule was a victory for you and your child. It said: the school district’s website that posts your child’s rights, their services, their calendar, their teacher contacts — that website must be accessible to you, whether you have low vision, blindness, cognitive differences, or any other disability. It said your child deserves parents who can access every digital tool that other parents take for granted.

If that rule is weakened or delayed, it is your child who loses. The IEP portal that you can’t open. The therapy scheduling app that won’t work with your screen reader. The school board meeting you couldn’t participate in because the registration link was broken.

Please. Request a meeting with OIRA. Tell them what your family’s digital access means to you. Tell them that your disabled child deserves parents who can fight for them with the same tools as everyone else.

Request a meeting here.

A Word to Every Friend and Ally

If you have a disabled friend — someone you love, laugh with, and care about — and you call yourself their ally, this is the moment that word is tested.

Disability is not a narrative device. It is not a cause for pity. It is a part of human experience shared by one in four Americans, including people who are brilliant, creative, funny, accomplished, and fully deserving of every digital door that the rest of the world walks through without a second thought.

When your blind friend cannot apply for transit benefits on her phone because the app is inaccessible, she is not experiencing a personal inconvenience. She is experiencing systematic exclusion. When your deaf colleague cannot watch the captionless public health video his county just posted, he is being told — by his own government — that he is not important enough to include.

Allyship means showing up when the stakes are real, not just retweeting hashtags. Requesting a five-minute virtual meeting with a federal regulatory office is one of the lowest-barrier, highest-impact things you can do right now for every disabled person in your life.

Do it because you love them. Do it because they would do it for you.

A Word to Teachers, Educators, and Healthcare Workers

You chose your profession because you believe in the dignity and potential of every person you serve. Every day, you work to ensure that students with disabilities get the education they deserve, that patients with disabilities receive the care they need.

But your work is undermined when the digital tools that are supposed to support it are inaccessible. A teacher of blind students who cannot access the district’s curriculum portal. A school counselor who cannot help a deaf student register for services online. A social worker who cannot guide a disabled client through a state benefits application because the site won’t work with assistive technology.

The 2024 rule would have made these failures less common. Weakening it makes them more so.

You have professional standing. You have community standing. A message from an educator or healthcare provider to OIRA carries weight. Please use it.

A Word to Religious Leaders — and to the Faithful

Every major world religion calls its followers to care for the vulnerable, to remove obstacles from the paths of those who struggle, and to treat all people as beings of sacred worth.

The Hebrew Bible commands, in Leviticus 19:14: “You shall not curse the deaf or place a stumbling block before the blind.” Jewish tradition teaches that stumbling blocks come in many forms — from inaccessible buildings to health care that is harder to access — and that we are obligated to remove them. The Torah repeatedly instructs: “If there be among you a person with needs, you shall not harden your heart, but you shall surely open your hand.” (Deuteronomy 15:7)

The Gospel of Luke records Jesus saying that when you give a feast, you should invite those who cannot repay you — the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind — “and you will be blessed.” (Luke 14:13–14) In Matthew 25:40, Jesus declares: “Whatever you did for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Turning away from the exclusion of disabled people is, in this framework, turning away from Christ himself.

In Islamic teaching, the Prophet Muhammad said: “If you want to find me, find me amongst the weak, because you are not given victory or aid from Allah except by the way that you treat those who are weak and oppressed.” The Quran directly addresses the treatment of blind people: in Surah Abasa (80:1–10), Allah rebukes the Prophet for turning away from a blind man who came seeking knowledge, teaching that every person — regardless of ability — deserves full attention and dignity. A Hadith states: “Cursed is the one who misleads a blind person away from his path” (Sunan Abu Dawud 2594) — understood both as an individual prohibition and a communal warning: a society that does not respect or care for those with special needs will be cursed.

In Buddhist teaching, karuna — compassion — is one of the four divine abodes, a foundational virtue applied without distinction to all beings. The Hindu concept of seva, selfless service, calls the faithful to act on behalf of those who are vulnerable. In the Sikh tradition, sewa — selfless service — is among the highest moral obligations.

If your faith calls you to love your neighbor, then your neighbor includes every blind person who cannot open a government website, every deaf person who cannot watch a public health video without captions, every person with a cognitive disability who cannot navigate a form that was built without them in mind.

Religious leaders: preach this. Organize your congregations. Help your laypeople understand that accessibility is a moral issue, not a technical one. Encourage every member of your community to request a meeting with OIRA. This is the work of faith made concrete.

What You Need to Do Right Now

Requesting a meeting with OIRA is straightforward. Here is how:

  1. Go to this link: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eo/neweomeeting?rin=1190-AA82
  2. Provide your name, email, and phone number. You will receive a confirmation with a link to schedule your virtual meeting.
  3. When prompted, describe what you will present. You do not need legal language. You do not need to be an expert. Write in plain language. You might say things like:
    • How inaccessible government websites have affected you or your family member
    • Why the April 2026 deadline matters and should not be extended
    • What specific government services — parks, schools, libraries, health departments, voting — you depend on and need to be accessible
    • That the DOJ has recognized since 2003 that government websites must be accessible under the ADA, and this rule simply puts concrete standards to a long-standing obligation
    • That many state and local governments are already in compliance with the rule — and that following it has actually helped lower their costs over time
  4. You can request a meeting as an individual or on behalf of an organization. Both matter. The more voices, the stronger the record.
  5. Share this article. Send it to parents, teachers, pastors, imams, rabbis, priests, coaches, neighbors, and friends. Post it on social media. Read it aloud to someone who cannot read it themselves. The power of this moment lies entirely in how many people choose to show up.

The Rule Is Still the Rule — Until It Isn’t

It bears repeating: as of the publication of this article, the 2024 Title II accessibility rule is still in effect. The ADA still requires that state and local government websites and apps be accessible to disabled people. No change has yet been made.

But “not yet” is not “never.” An Interim Final Rule process moves quickly. Changes could come before the April 24 deadline. The window for public voices to be heard is narrow.

We have waited long enough. Disabled people have waited decades for a digital world that includes them. We have watched as every other aspect of public life went online — voting, education, healthcare, civic participation — and watched as too much of it was built without us.

We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for access to what everyone else already has.

We are asking for the right to open the door.

Please, request your meeting today. For yourself. For your child. For your friend. For your neighbor. For the blind grandmother who cannot access her county health department’s website. For the deaf father who cannot watch the public school board meeting. For every disabled person who has ever stared at a screen that stared back — blank, impassable, indifferent.

This is the moment. The door is still open. Let’s make sure it stays that way.

Request Your OIRA Meeting Now →

Blind Access Journal covers accessibility, disability rights, and assistive technology. We are grateful to disability rights attorney Lainey Feingold, whose legal analysis at lflegal.com provided essential background for this article. We encourage all readers to visit her site for in-depth legal context and additional resources.

The Americans with Disabilities Act continues to require accessible websites and apps regardless of any changes to the 2024 rule. The fight for digital inclusion continues.

Sources

  1. Feingold, Lainey. “Tell the Federal Government Not to Change the Title II Accessibility Regulations.” Law Office of Lainey Feingold, March 2, 2026. https://www.lflegal.com/2026/03/title-ii-action-needed/
  2. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). “Pending EO 12866 Regulatory Review — RIN 1190-AA82.” Reginfo.gov, February 13, 2026. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=1282112
  3. OIRA Meeting Request Portal — EO 12866 Virtual Meeting Request (RIN 1190-AA82). https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eo/neweomeeting?rin=1190-AA82
  4. U.S. Department of Justice. “Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities — Final Rule.” Federal Register, April 24, 2024. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/24/2024-07758/accessibility-of-web-information-and-services-of-state-and-local-government-entities
  5. Settlement Agreement: Fowler v. PSIhttps://dralegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Settlement-Agreement-Fowler_fully-executed_Accessible.pdf
  6. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), June 5, 2018. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
  7. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Leviticus 19:14. BibleHub. https://www.biblehub.com/leviticus/19-14.htm
  8. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Deuteronomy 15:7. BibleHub. https://www.biblehub.com/deuteronomy/15-7.htm
  9. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Luke 14:13–14. BibleHub. https://www.biblehub.com/luke/14-13.htm
  10. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Matthew 25:40. BibleHub. https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/25-40.htm
  11. The Quran. Surah Abasa (80:1–10). Quran.com. https://quran.com/80
  12. Hadith. Sunan Abu Dawud 2594: “Cursed is the one who misleads a blind person away from his path.” Sunnah.com. https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2594
  13. Hadith. Narrated by Abu Darda: Prophet Muhammad on seeking victory through the weak and oppressed. Sunan Abu Dawud 2594. Sunnah.com. https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2594
  14. Feingold, Lainey. “Title II Web and Mobile Technical Accessibility Standards: History + Current Status.” Law Office of Lainey Feingold, originally published 2022, updated 2026. https://www.lflegal.com/2022/08/doj-web-regs-announce/

Slack Update Breaks Accessibility in Simplified Layout Mode

by

In this video, Darrell Hilliker (CPWA) demonstrates a critical accessibility regression in Slack version 4.47.69. While the new “Activity” view aims to consolidate messages and mentions for improved efficiency, it appears to be completely incompatible with Slack’s Simplified Layout Mode when using a screen reader.

Darrell walks through several standard navigation techniques—including keyboard shortcuts (Ctrl+Shift+3), the F6 key to move between regions, and Tab/Arrow key navigation—showing that none of these methods allow a JAWS user to access the actual message content within the Activity tab. Instead of displaying notifications, the screen reader merely reports “loading” or “blank,” effectively locking out users who rely on these specific settings to perform their professional duties.

Bug Report: Accessibility Regression in Slack Activity View

  • Priority: P1 (Critical / Blocker)
  • Status: Open
  • Affected Version: Slack 4.47.69 (Windows 11)
  • Assistive Tech: JAWS 2026
  • Configuration: Simplified Display Mode: ON

Title

New Activity View is Keyboard/Screen Reader Inaccessible in Simplified Display Mode.

Description

The newly introduced “Activity” tab fails to render or focus message content when “Simplified Display Mode” is enabled. This prevents screen reader users from reading mentions, DMs, or threads within the Activity view, creating a total task blocker for collaboration.

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Open Slack (v4.47.69) on Windows 11 with JAWS running.
  2. Ensure Simplified Display Mode is enabled in Slack settings.
  3. Use Ctrl+Shift+3 to navigate to the Activity tab.
  4. Attempt to navigate into the message list using Tab, Arrow Keys, or F6 to switch regions.
  5. Observe the screen reader output and focus behavior.

Actual Behavior

The Activity tab reports as “Loading” or “Blank.” Focus remains trapped on the “Breadcrumbs toolbar” (Activity and Workspace buttons) or “Notification Preferences.” There is no keyboard path to reach or read the actual list of notifications or messages.

Expected Behavior

When the Activity tab is focused, the message list should be populated and reachable via standard keyboard navigation (Tab or Arrow keys). Screen readers should announce the content of mentions, DMs, and threads as they do in the standard view.

Impact Statement

This is a task-blocking accessibility issue. Slack is a critical infrastructure tool for thousands of companies, educational institutions, and government agencies. By breaking compatibility with Simplified Display Mode, this update prevents blind and visually impaired professionals from participating in essential workplace communications, disrupting their ability to perform their jobs.

Blind Access Journal Launches Community Effort to Improve WSJT-X Accessibility for Aging and Disabled Amateur Radio Operators

by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Blind Access Journal Launches Community Effort to Improve WSJT-X Accessibility for Aging and Disabled Amateur Radio Operators

Peoria, Arizona — December 20, 2025 — Darrell Hilliker, NU7I, a totally blind Amateur Radio operator and accessibility professional, is spearheading a community initiative to improve the accessibility of WSJT-X (and WSJT-X Improved) for blind, low-vision, and mobility-impaired hams. The work is being organized and documented through Blind Access Journal, the blog Hilliker publishes to advance practical accessibility and inclusion in technology.

Digital weak-signal protocols like FT8 have become a core part of modern Amateur Radio. Yet many hams—especially those who are aging or who acquire disabilities—are finding it harder to participate fully when widely used software lacks accessible user interface foundations.

“A month doesn’t go by where I don’t hear at least one conversation on the bands where an older ham is contemplating giving up or curtailing their activities due to a physical disability like arthritis or a visual impairment,” said Hilliker. “We can do better as a community—and we can do it together.”

Recognizing Existing Innovation and Building an Inclusive Future

This initiative is not a critique of existing community solutions, nor is it intended to replace them. Blind Access Journal recognizes and commends the developers of alternative tools such as QLog, whose efforts have helped many operators. Instead, Hilliker’s project aims to broaden inclusion by improving accessibility in the widely adopted WSJT-X ecosystem so that more hams can participate using the tools their clubs, friends, and on-air communities already rely on.

“The entire Amateur Radio community benefits from all efforts to adapt,” Hilliker added, “especially in situations where disabled hams are not fully included from the beginning.”

Goal: Full and Equitable Access to Digital Operating

The initiative’s objective is nothing less than full and equitable access to Amateur Radio digital communication protocols and the software that enables them. Key accessibility goals include:

  • Expected keyboard navigation throughout the application
  • Strong compatibility with screen readers such as JAWS and NVDA (NonVisual Desktop Access)
  • UI that can reflow and resize for operators using magnification
  • Support for dark mode, high contrast, and other visual accommodations that many aging hams depend on

Highest Priority Technical Need

The most critical improvement—especially for blind screen-reader users—centers on the Band Activity and Rx Frequency tables. Today, these areas are widely experienced as inaccessible because the data is effectively “painted” to the screen or presented as unstructured text, rather than implemented using the underlying Qt5 UI structures that expose information to accessibility interfaces.

The initiative seeks a redesign and implementation approach that ensures these tables are true, semantically structured UI components—so assistive technologies can reliably read, navigate, and interact with them.

Call for Volunteer Developers

Blind Access Journal is calling on a small group of experienced Amateur Radio software builders and tinkerers—especially those who:

  • Have deep experience with Qt5 user interfaces
  • Can build and compile WSJT-X or WSJT-X Improved from source with confidence
  • Are willing to collaborate with disabled hams in an open, test-driven, user-centered process

Familiarity with accessibility design and standards such as WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) is welcome but not required. Disabled hams involved in the effort are prepared to lead the process, define needs, perform testing, write documentation, and support the work in every way outside of the core design and coding tasks.

Volunteers will gain the satisfaction of delivering long-sought, meaningful accessibility improvements to a widely used mainstream Amateur Radio application—work that can make a real difference for thousands of fellow hams.

Looking Toward 2026

Blind Access Journal thanks the Amateur Radio community for its time, creativity, and tradition of public service. The initiative’s organizers hope to make 2026 a year of digital accessibility and inclusion for all radio amateurs.

To volunteer or learn more:
Email editor@blindaccessjournal.com and follow updates via Blind Access Journal.

Media Contact

Darrell Hilliker, NU7I
Blind Access Journal
Email: editor@blindaccessjournal.com

When Download Links Aren’t Links: A Critical Accessibility Failure in AI Tools Blind People Depend On

by

Introduction

Artificial intelligence has the potential to dramatically level the playing field for blind and visually impaired people. Every day, blind professionals use tools like ChatGPT to create and export documents needed for jobs, education, and community participation: resumes, legal forms, code, classroom materials, and more.

But a recent shift in how ChatGPT delivers generated files has created a new accessibility barrier — one that directly harms the very users who could benefit most from the technology.

Not a Feature Gap — a Civil Rights Issue

When sighted users see a clickable download link, blind users encounter only this:

sandbox:/mnt/data/filename.zip

JAWS or NVDA reads it aloud like text.
It doesn’t register as a link.
Pressing Enter does nothing.

The file — often essential content — becomes completely inaccessible.

And the consequences are not theoretical:

  • A blind job seeker can’t download the resume they just generated.
  • A blind accessibility engineer can’t retrieve screenshots or audit reports.
  • A blind student can’t access generated study materials.
  • A blind parent can’t obtain forms needed for family programs.

This is not a mere inconvenience. It is a functional blocker to employment, education, and independence.

A Growing Problem in the Tech Industry

Too often, companies “secure” content at the expense of accessibility — and assume the tradeoff is justified. But security and accessibility must coexist. When they don’t, developers have simply chosen the wrong priorities.

One blind accessibility tester put it directly:

“I’m locked out of my own work. The AI wrote me a document — but I can’t download it.”

Another blind user shared:

“If it’s not accessible from the start, it’s not innovation. It’s segregation.”

The Human Impact of a Missing <a> Tag

What looks like a minor UI oversight is actually a critical, task-blocking WCAG 2.2 conformance failure in at least four different success criteria, including keyboard accessibility and name/role/value semantics.

But beyond compliance…

If a blind user cannot access a file — it does not exist for them.

We should not have to rely on workarounds, Base64 hacks, sighted assistance, or manual extraction to download content we requested and created.

This Is Fixable — Today

The solution is simple: make sure every file intended for download is represented as a real hyperlink:

  • Keyboard-focusable using tab and shift+tab navigation
  • Screen-reader announceable
  • Actionable without a mouse
  • Secure and accessible

This is not a feature enhancement — it is a restoration of equal access.

Blind Users Belong in the Future of AI

OpenAI has expressed a strong commitment to accessibility — and I believe the company will resolve this issue. But this situation reminds us of something bigger:

Accessibility must be built into every step of development — not patched later.

When disabled people ask for accessibility, we are asking for inclusion, dignity, and independence.

We are asking to belong.

Call to Action

  • Developers: Test with JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver and other assistive technologies before shipping.
  • Accessibility leaders: Add file interaction to automated regression tests.
  • Companies building AI tools: Welcome us in — or risk leaving us behind.
  • Disabled people, friends, relatives and others who care about us: Please reach out to the OpenAI Help Center asking them to fix the current accessibility issue and to publicly recommit to at least WCAG 2.2 conformance as a definition of done that must be achieved before shipping new or updated products.

Blind users contribute, create, and advocate every day.
We deserve access to the results of our own work.

— Written by a blind accessibility professional, community advocate, and lifelong champion of equal access to information and technology.

About the Author

Darrell Hilliker, NU7I, CPWA, Salesforce Certified Platform User Experience Designer, is a Principal Accessibility Test Engineer and publisher of Blind Access Journal. He advocates for equal access to information and technology for blind and visually impaired people worldwide.

The Twelve Inaccessibilities of Christmas

by

In this approximately 6-minute podcast, Allison and Darrell Hilliker sing their take on the twelve days of Christmas.

The Twelve Inaccessibilities of Christmas

  1. On the first day of Christmas, the developers gave to me: a mouse click only menu tree.
  2. On the second day of Christmas, the developers gave to me: two unlabeled buttons and a mouse click only menu tree.
  3. On the third day of Christmas, the developers gave to me: three image CAPTCHAs, two unlabeled buttons and a mouse click only menu tree.
  4. On the fourth day of Christmas, the developers gave to me: four carousels, three image CAPTCHAs, two unlabeled buttons and a mouse click only menu tree.
  5. On the fifth day of Christmas, the developers gave to me: five undescribed graphics, four carousels, three image CAPTCHAs, two unlabeled buttons and a mouse click only menu tree.
  6. On the sixth day of Christmas, the developers gave to me: six focus issues, five undescribed graphics, four carousels, three image CAPTCHAs, two unlabeled buttons and a mouse click only menu tree.
  7. On the seventh day of Christmas, the developers gave to me: seven JavaScript frameworks, six focus issues, five undescribed graphics, four carousels, three image CAPTCHAs, two unlabeled buttons and a mouse click only menu tree.
  8. On the eighth day of Christmas, the developers gave to me: eight untagged documents, seven JavaScript frameworks, six focus issues, five undescribed graphics, four carousels, three image CAPTCHAs, two unlabeled buttons and a mouse click only menu tree.
  9. On the ninth day of Christmas, the developers gave to me: nine map pins dancing, eight untagged documents, seven JavaScript frameworks, six focus issues, five undescribed graphics, four carousels, three image CAPTCHAs, two unlabeled buttons and a mouse click only menu tree.
  10. On the tenth day of Christmas, the developers gave to me: ten misleading link names, nine map pins dancing, eight untagged documents, seven JavaScript frameworks, six focus issues, five undescribed graphics, four carousels, three image CAPTCHAs, two unlabeled buttons and a mouse click only menu tree.
  11. On the eleventh day of Christmas, the developers gave to me: eleven custom elements, ten misleading link names, nine map pins dancing, eight untagged documents, seven JavaScript frameworks, six focus issues, five undescribed graphics, four carousels, three image CAPTCHAs, two unlabeled buttons and a mouse click only menu tree.
  12. On the twelfth day of Christmas, the developers gave to me: twelve tangled tables, eleven custom elements, ten misleading link names, nine map pins dancing, eight untagged documents, seven JavaScript frameworks, six focus issues, five undescribed graphics, four carousels, three image CAPTCHAs, two unlabeled buttons and a mouse click only menu tree.

Happy holidays from Allyssa, Arabella, Allison and Darrell!

AccessiLife Consulting, Blind Access Journal, and the Hilliker family, must frequently rely on sighted assistance in order to get important, inaccessible tasks done. In most cases, we have chosen Aira as our visual interpreter. If you are ready to become an Aira Explorer, and you feel it in your heart to pass along a small gift to the journal or our family, we ask that you use our referral link. Your first month of Aira service will be free of charge, we will receive a discount on our bill and we will thank you for supporting the important work we do here at Blind Access Journal.

We love hearing from our listeners! Please feel free to talk with us in the comments. What do you like? How could we make the show better? What topics would you like us to cover on future shows?

If you use Twitter, let’s get connected! Please follow Allison (@AlliTalk) and Darrell (@darrell).

Random Accessibility Thoughts: We Blind People Need to Change the Path of Least Resistance

by

When I was 13 years old, all the way back in 1986, I learned exactly how horrible some people were when I found out the principal of my local high school was not going to let me enroll because of my blindness. She wondered things like, “how would he use the bathroom” and thought I should stay at the school for the blind, which she determined to be the “least restrictive environment” for my educational needs.

This discrimination was ultimately put down, and my local school district had to pay for me to attend public school in another district where I was actually wanted, thanks to the support of family and friends and a hard fought legal battle won on my behalf by the National Federation of the Blind.

Despite this victory, and my subsequent educational success in high school, I lost a lot of my innocence and my ears were forced wide open. I realized, once and for all, that my blindness really did set me apart from the rest of the world and that I would be constantly forced to prove my worth as a human being over and over again for anything I wanted to accomplish. I quickly decided there was an “us vs. them” scenario with “us” being myself and others like me, my blind brothers and sisters, and “them” being the sighted people comprising the rest of the world around me. At age 13, it was already war time!

Then, just one year later, in 1987, I got my first computer, an old Apple 2E with an Echo speech synthesizer! It even came with a 1200 baud modem! It was almost immediately followed by the awesome, revolutionary Braille ‘n Speak note taking device by Blazie Engineering!

I quickly discovered the incredible potential for computer technology to level the playing field for blind people like me. As I integrated technology into my life, I found it enabled a vast amount of communication and greater information access. I could complete the majority of my homework on the long car rides home from school. I could read some books, especially those on technology, using a brand-new service called Computerized Books for the Blind (CBFB). I could communicate with blind and sighted people on computer bulletin board systems on terms of equality. I could even, finally, do my own logging of the contacts I made on amateur radio, saying “goodbye” to static paper logs written with my Perkins Braille Writer and unweildy tape recordings my mom manually wrote into a printed logbook.

In the late 1980s, as I progressed through high school and enhanced my technology skills, I thought I was on top of the world and I just knew there wasn’t anything a blind person couldn’t do if only they set their mind to it and used the necessary technology. While sighted students were still plodding along with pencil and paper, I was taking better and quicker notes on my Braille ‘n Speak. While some Braille books were still available from several sources in the older transcribed format, we started scanning, transcribing and Brailling our own books using technology. With floppy disk, Braille ‘n Speak and the accompanying serial cable in hand, I was the mad scientist around school, hooking up my gizmos to the various IBM computers around school so I could enjoy their text-based user interfaces largely on terms of equality with my sighted peers. In conjunction with my talking radios, I could hook up my computer and enjoy packet radio just like my fellow amateur radio operators around the world.

In this scenario, in any situation where I found I really needed sight in order to accomplish something, I generally found an available sighted person willing to read something to me, because, I knew, thanks to the philosophy instilled in me through my association with the National Federation of the Blind, my blindness wouldn’t stop me from doing anything I set my mind to accomplish.

Sadly, while enjoying my text-based technology, I began to realize the sighted world was leaving us behind. While we blind people clung onto DOS, sighted people moved to Windows. As sighted people embraced the Internet, the old systems like command-line shell accounts, FTP, Gopher and text-based email moved onto the World Wide Web. While we plodded along with our text-based Lynx web browser, sighted people moved on to NCSA, Netscape, Internet Explorer and, finally, to the browsers we know today. As ebooks finally became normalized in the sighted world, blind people got left behind through the use of inaccessible, protective wrappings around information that should have otherwise been accessible.

Fast forward to today, 2018, 31 years after I got my first computer… I think we have another chance at truly equal accessibility, but will we insist on taking it for ourselves?

As I see it, we blind people enjoy the following technology advancements which should help us catch up to the sighted world, if not actually compete with the sighted on terms of equality once in awhile:

  • The free, open-source Nonvisual Desktop Access (NVDA) screen reader makes computer technology more affordable and accessible to more blind people than it has ever been before.
  • Popular operating systems including Android, iOS, Mac OS and Windows all now feature built-in screen readers blind people can use out of the box without the need to purchase and install a separate, 3rd-party solution.
  • Internationally-recognized guidelines, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, provide website developers with the framework they can follow in order to insure their sites are accessible to people with disabilities.
  • Mainstream technology companies, including Adobe, Apple, Google and Microsoft, all provide best practices and tools for insuring the content created using their solutions is accessible to people with disabilities.
  • Legislation, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act in the United States, as well as many other similar laws around the world, are avenues we can use to obtain equal accessibility as a human right.
  • And, finally, when everything else fails, we now have visual-interpreting services such as Aira and Be My Eyes, where we can go back to a scenario where we employ sighted readers to access critical information we’re just not going to get any other way.

Despite all these assets at our disposal, it sadly seems the world around us remains largely inaccessible…

  • The staff at doctor’s offices, hospitals and other healthcare facilities usually whine about HIPAA and being too busy when they are asked to provide accessible, electronic medical records or even, all too frequently, to help us fill out their inaccessible paperwork.
  • Many blind college students still can’t gain access to their textbooks on time because they are not available in an accessible format they can read.
  • There are still lots of blind people who can’t get hired, are unable to perform important parts of their jobs or find themselves left out of promotional opportunities due to the use of inaccessible workplace apps, websites and other forms of information technology.
  • Banks, health insurance companies, and a myriad of other private businesses often still communicate with their customers using inaccessible websites, send inaccessible critical correspondence and insist on inaccessible, obsolete methods of communication without providing reasonable accommodations to blind customers.
  • Many grocery delivery services, stores and other e-commerce companies continue to insist on using inaccessible apps and websites, despite the plethora of options available for making them accessible.
  • Even some companies with an apparently forward-looking approach to accessibility often fail to take care of obvious accessibility issues that lock us out, what I call the accessibility low-hanging fruit, choosing instead to focus on catchy, fancy, whiz-bang accessibility features while hiding behind their “accessibility teams” who rarely, if ever, respond to genuine feedback about their inaccessibility.
  • Even seemingly regulated federal and state government agencies continue to communicate using inaccessible websites, send inaccessible critical correspondence and insist on inaccessible, obsolete methods of communication without providing reasonable accommodations to blind people.

As the available information and technology for making things accessible improves on a daily basis, I become angrier and angrier each time I encounter yet another inexcusable accessibility barrier. As a blind person who is not broken and is, in fact, a full human being with the same responsibilities, rights and intrinsic value as that sighted person over there, I vow to continue fighting the good, accessibility, fight and I am always looking for a few good warriors to join me.

So, this is all very disappointing and discouraging, isn’t it? What can, or must, we do when we encounter accessibility issues that discriminate against us and lock us out of full and equal participation? Here are just a few ideas:

  • Contact a company on social media services, such as Facebook or Twitter, pointing out the accessibility issues and asking that they be directly addressed.
  • Write and send a certified letter to a company’s CEO pointing out accessibility concerns, providing possible solutions and asking him or her to direct the prompt, ongoing resolution of those concerns in a sustainable manner.
  • Engage in structured negotiations or take other legal action against a company as you deem appropriate after trying other, less drastic methods first.
  • Publicly call out all organizations doing business specifically in the blind community whenever you encounter accessibility barriers, as the leadership of these organizations should always know better.

So, in conclusion, finally… I think there are two ways we can go down the road of better accessibility: optimistic and pessimistic. We should try the optimistic approach first: simply politely point out the accessibility barrier(s), provide possible solutions if you have some good ideas and directly ask for prompt, sustainable resolution… But, if that optimistic approach does not work, we should be willing to go to war… In the pessimistic approach, we have determined that the gloves are off and playing the nice guy is no longer going to work. As I see it, the key goal of this approach is simply to change the perceived path of least resistance from one of inaccessibility and ignoring us to one of greater accessibility and attention to our feedback. This pessimistic, or cynical, approach involves taking complicated, difficult and often dramatic steps such as digging in by not doing what is asked in the inaccessible manner, legal action, protesting at the CEO’s office or in the streets and consistent public call-outs of the organizations ongoing wrongdoing.

Let’s all figure out how to work together, as blind brothers and sisters, to break down, using all means necessary, the accessibility barriers that hold us back from living the lives we want.

Redefining Access: Questions to Ponder in the Age of Remote Assistance

by

Overview

There is an area of assistive technology that has recently been gaining momentum, and I would like to explore what that means for us as blind people. We are seeing an emergence of platforms that allow individuals to virtually connect with sighted assistants. Users refer to this category of technology by different terms such as visual interpreting services, or remote assistance services. The two most common varieties of this tech are apps like Aira or Be My Eyes, but less formal mainstream options such as recruiting assistance via Facetime, Skype, or a screen-sharing program like Zoom are also available. My aim here is not to focus on any one or two apps specifically, rather, I prefer to explore the general category of access technology that these programs represent. New companies providing versions of such technology may come and go in our lifetimes, and the specifics of each service are less important to my purpose here than exploring the overall category that they fall into. In this article, I will use the term remote sighted assistance technologies, or remote assistance, to refer to this general group of tech. Since there doesn’t seem to be a consensus about what these technologies are actually called as a group, I’ll use this term for clarity.

As I see it, the key question related to remote assistance apps is: What role do we, as blind people, want this sort of technology to play in our lives? Regardless of one’s individual political views, employment status, amount of tech expertise, level of education, degree of vision loss, etc., I think most would agree that we, as blind people, are best suited to decide how our community can nmost effectively utilize any new technology. I think it is important for us to consider this question, because if we do not, it is likely that other entities will rush to define the role of these technology’s for us. Disability-related agencies, federal legeslators, private businesses, medical professionals, educators, app-developers, blindness organizations, and others may jump in and try to tell us how we should use this technology. Thus it becomes important for us to decide what we, as blind and low vision individuals, do and do not want from the technology.

What, specifically, do we want though? I do not think that we have had a sufficient number of dialogues about this issue to decide. I think this is due in part to the seeming newness of this technology as it relates to blind people. It seems that many folks are yet unfamiliar with the existence of such programs, or if they are aware, they have not yet realized the possible implications of their use. Still others focus on one or two well-known products, and assume that their popularity may be a passing fad. It is true that we have seen many supposed revolutionary technologies come and go over the years. It is fair for us to be cautious before making any sweeping pronouncements about any one tech. My opinion however is that, no matter if any one company, app, or service comes or goes, we are entering a new realm of assistive technology here with the growing availability of these remote assistance type programs. No matter which companies or groups ultimately provide the services, this category of tech will remain, and its impact on our lives as blind people will become more and more apparent. The point being, even if you yourself do not use any remote assistance technologies, you may benefit from taking part in dialogues relating to their use, because the results of such dialogues could prove far-reaching for blind people as a community.

What, then, specifically, might be the issues we consider? I do not pretend to know all the possible ramifications of these technologies, but two large considerations come to mind, and these two will be my focus for the remainder of this article. Some areas I would like us to think about as a community relate to the impact of remote assistance technologies on accessibility advocacy, and their effects on education/training.

Accessibility Advocacy

I have spent a good portion of my adult life advocating for accessibility. I have written dozens of letters, negotiated with business owners, filed bug reports, talked to developers, provided public education, and done countless hours of both paid and unpaid testing. When I advocate for a company or organization to make its tools accessible, I like to think that I am not just working to improve my own experience as a disabled person, but hopefully to improve the experiences of other users as well. However, the results of such efforts are often quite mixed. For every accessibility victory that I have, I encounter dozens more that do not yield any real improvements. Often companies seem unwilling or unable to make any genuine accessibility changes. Other times, changes are made, but when the site/app/product is updated, or the company switches ownership, then accessibility is harmed. And these barriers are frustrating! Not just frustrating, but such barriers often prevent us from getting important work done. As a result, the availability of remote sighted assistance technologies can make a good deal of difference in our lives. For example, if a website is not accessible, we can still utilize it. If a screen does not have a nonvisual interface, we can accomplish the related task. If a printed document is not available in an alternate format, we can read the info it contains. And the positive outcomes of such increased access can be extraordinary! I am excited about that level of access as I am sure many blind people are.

Yet, over time, with consistent use of remote sighted assistant technologies, might we enter a future where we, as individuals and as a community, are no longer advocating as readily for accessibility? If we enter that future, what might the consequences be? For example, I recently had to make a reservation at a hotel I would be staying at for a business trip out of state. I found that the hotel’s online reservation platform was not accessible with my screen reader. Since that hotel was a good fit for my trip, and because the rates were lower on the website than they would be if I called the hotel directly, I fired up my favorite remote assistance app to have a sighted person navigate to the hotel’s website and make the reservation for me. I felt good about my choice because I got the job done. I reserved my hotel room quickly and efficiently, and did so with little inconvenience to anyone else. And after all, is that not the main point? Was I independent? Yes and no. I did not physically make the reservation by myself on my own computer, but I did get the room booked and did not have to ask a coworker to do it or call the hotel directly. And I was able to get the room reserved during the time in my schedule that was most convenient for me. So I would call that an independence win.

However, here is the part that leaves me with some concern. After getting my room reserved, I did not then contact the hotel to explain the accessibility issue I discovered on the booking part of their website. Could I have? Absolutely, but alas, I did not. And if I had, would my advocacy efforts have been weakened by the fact that, one way or another, I had gotten my reservation booked? Although, in an alternate scenario, one where I did not have remote assistance technology available, I might have spent a good deal of effort contacting the company, explaining the issue, and still not gotten it resolved. In the end I may have had to choose a different hotel, book the reservation over the phone but paid more money, or had a colleague reserve the room for me. And I personally like none of those scenarios as well as the one I have now, where the remote assistance app helped me get my room booked. Yet, by doing this, I am insuring that the inaccessible website remains. If I had contacted the company to advocate for accessibility changes, I may not have gotten the needed accessibility, but by not contacting the company, I definitely did not get improved accessibility. Realistically, those of us who use remote assistance technologies are not likely to do both things – use the assistance while also advocating for accessibility. Some of us may, or we may do so in a few cases, but overall there are not enough hours in a day for us to put as much effort into accessibility advocacy when we have gotten the associated tasks done. Even if we do choose to advocate, might our cases be taken less seriously than before because we ultimately got the task done? In a world where businesses do not often understand the need to make their products and services accessible, will we find it even harder to make our cases if we manage to use the products and services? At the very least, there could be implications if we ever wanted to take legal action, because so much of the legal system focuses upon damages and denials of service. Even if we are not the sort of person to pursue an issue through legal channels though, might we find it harder to educate individual companies about the need for accessibility? Because from a business-owner’s perspective, a blind person was still able to use their service, and the subtleties of how or why we were able to do so would likely be lost in the explanation process.

Yet, even if any one, two, or one million websites are never made accessible, how important is that fact if blind people can still do what they need to do? Maybe we will agree that it is not important. That might not be the worst thing, but I am not sure we have decided this as a community yet because, for the most part, such dialogues have not taken place in any large-scale way. My guess is that opinions on this issue will vary widely, and that sort of healthy debate could be a great thing. It is that variance that makes the issue such a crucial one to discuss.

In the case of my hotel website, I may have been able to get my room reserved, but I did nothing to help insure that the next blind person would be able to reserve her room. I have solved my own problem, but in the process, I have bumped the issue along for the next blind person to encounter. True, that next person may also be able to use her own remote sighted assistance app, and the next person and then the next person, but ultimately the issue of the inaccessible website remains. Have we decided, as blind individuals, that this solution is enough? Because there are complexities to consider. Right now, not all the remote sighted assistance technologies are available to every blind person. Sometimes this unavailability is due to financial constraints I e some of the remote assistance tools are quite expensive. Some remote assistance apps are not available in certain geographic regions. Occasionally the technology is not usable due to the blind person having additional disabilities like deaf-blindness. Some of the assistance programs have age requirements. Other times these technologies are not practical due to the lack of availability or usability of the platforms needed to run them. In any case, it is true that such remote assistance solutions are not currently available to everyone who might benefit from them. Even in an ideal future where every single person on earth had unlimited access to an effective remote assistant technology solution at any time of day, would we still consider that our ultimate resolution to the problem? Might we still want the website to be traditionally accessible, meaning that the site be coded in such a way that most common forms of assistive technology could access it? Would we still prefer that the site follow disability best practices and content accessibility guidelines? Especially considering, in the case of my hotel’s website, that the work needed to make the site more traditionally accessible might be minimal. Do we decide that whether we make our hotel reservations via an accessible website or whether we make them via remote assistant technology, the process is irrelevant as long as we get the reservations made?

Taking this quandary one step further, consider that today there are a handful of organizations, schools, and cities who are paying remote assistance companies to provide nonvisual access to anyone who visits their site. Such services could be revolutionary in terms of offering blind people independence and flexibility unlike that which we have seen before. However, what might the possible drawbacks of this approach be? If I, for example, could talk my current town of Tempe Arizona into paying for a remote access subscription that would give me, and other folks in the city, nonvisual access to all that our town has to offer, wouldn’t that be an extraordinary development? Yes and no. I wonder if, after agreeing to spend a good deal of money on remote access subscriptions, would our city then be unwilling to address other accessibility concerns? Would they stop efforts to make their city websites accessible? Might they resist improvements to nonvisual intersection navigability? Might our local university stop scanning textbooks for students because our city offers remote access for all? When our daughter starts preschool in our local district, might they tell us to use remote assistance, rather than provide us with parent materials in alternative formats? Since our daughter too has vision loss, might her school be reluctant to braille her classroom materials because they know our city provides alternatives for accessing print? On the surface, such scenarios may seem unlikely, but are they really so impossible? After all, if the city is paying for a remote assistance service, would they still feel compelled to use resources on other access improvements? Might residents find that it became harder, not easier, to advocate for changes? What happens to other groups who cannot typically access remote assistance technologies, such as those who are deaf-blind, seniors who may not have the needed tech skills, or children who do not meet the companies’ minimum age requirements for service? If a local group of blind people wants to increase access in their town, and their city only has a set amount of money they are willing to spend on improvements, which items should we be asking for? Remote access subscriptions, increased accessibility, or a combination of these? Such questions are not implying that cities/organizations that purchase subscriptions are making poor choices or that they should not obtain these subscriptions. I am simply asking these questions to get folks thinking about possible implications of widespread remote access use. It is possible that none of my proposed scenarios will come true. It is more likely that other scenarios and potential issues will arise that I have not yet thought up. The point here is not to criticize the groups that employ these services, rather to get us all asking questions, starting dialogues, and considering possible outcomes.

Education and Training

I think it is especially important to think about the implications of such technologies on the world of education. Whether we are talking about the education of young blind children in schools, blind students pursuing degrees at universities, or adults new to vision loss who are going through our vocational rehabilitation system, what becomes most important for us to teach to these individuals? How much time and energy aught we put into basic blindness skills, alternative techniques, and independent problem solving? When a student enters Kindergarten, how many resources do we put into adding braille to objects in their classroom, brailing each book they come across, installing access software on their computers and tablets, insisting that the apps/programs their class uses work with this software, adding braille signage to the school building doors, and making sure the child learns to locate parts of their school using their canes? If the answers to those questions seem obvious, then do those answers change if the age of the student changes? Do we feel the same way about using resources if the student is in third grade? Seventh grade, tenth grade, or a college student? Do the answers change if the student is new to vision loss, has multiple disabilities, is a non-native English speaker, or has other unique circumstances? Do the high school and university science labs of the future equip their blind students with braille, large print, and talking measuring tools, or hardware and software to connect them with remoted sighted assistance? Do we do a combination of these things? And if so, when would we expect a student to use which technique, and how might we explain that choice to the student? Moreover, how might we explain the need for that choice to a classroom teacher, a parent, an IEP team, a disabled student service office, a vocational rehabilitation councelor, or an administrator in charge of allocating funding? In our rehab centers and adjustment to blindness training programs, , what skills do we now prioritize teaching? In our Orientation and Mobility or cane travel classes, do we still spend time teaching folks how to observe their surroundings nonvisually, assess where they are, and develop their own set of techniques for deciding how to get where they want to go? Or is the need for problem-solving less important if one learns how to effectively interact with a remote sighted assistant who can provide visual info like reading street signs, describing neighborhood layouts, relaying the color of traffic lights, and warning of potential obstacles ahead? While most folks would agree that a level of basic orientation and mobility skills are essential for staying safe, which skills, specifically, do we see as being the most crucial given the other info now available to us via remote assistance? In our technology classes, which skills would we spend more time on, how to explore and navigate cluttered interfaces, understanding the various features and settings available in our access software programs, or developing a system of interacting effectively with a sighted assistant whom we reach through an app? Again, if the answer is that we do all those things, how much time do we spend on any one and in which contexts? How much of any certain type of training might our rehab and other funding systems actually support? If agencies, schools, and organizations agree to fund remote access subscriptions might they then choose not to fund other types of training or equipment? Does this funding level change if the person resides in a town or region that has its own subscription to a remote access service? What if the school that a student attends has its own subscription, so the student primarily learns using those techniques, but then the student moves to an area without such access? I have my own thoughts about the answers to these questions, but rather than me devising my own responses, I’d like us, as a community, to consider these questions because their answers have the potential to affect us all.

Employment

Employment is often the end-goal of most training and education programs. It is true that blind people have an abysmally high unemployment rate, so almost anything we could do to lower that would be worthwhile, right? Does an increase in remoted sighted assistant technology use actually result in an increase in employment for blind people? Maybe. Maybe not. I suspect we do not have enough data to make a call about that yet. On one hand, remote assistance technologies could enable us to do certain employment tasks more independently and efficiently than ever before. On the other hand, we may find that there are still some technologies that we will need to use autonomously in order to be workforce competitive. Even with remote assistant technologies, we may find that some inaccessible workplace technologies create show-stopping employment barriers for us. When that occurs, we find ourselves back in the realm of needing accessibility advocacy. If we create an education and rehabilitation system that relies heavily upon learning to use remote assistance tech, might we build a future workforce of blind people who are more equipped, or less equip for the world of employment? Only history can tell us for sure one day, but in the meantime, we have to consider what impact our choices about the tools we teach, and the types of access we advocate for, may have on future job seekers.

How much impact has our accessibility advocacy really had on employment rates though? Just a few decades ago, many people believed that assistive technologies would finally level the playing field and revolutionize access to education and employment for people with disabilities. While we have made some strides, we as blind people have not seen much in the way of greater levels of employment. Despite advocacy done by some of the brightest and best minds our community has to offer, we do not yet have nearly the level of universal accessibility that we need to participate as effectively in society as we might like.

Setting Our Priorities

Here in the US, recent legislation has weakened the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and that fact, combined with a history of lost discrimination and accessibility related cases, may not give us as much hope for the future of accessibility advocacy as we might like. We may wish for apps and websites to be accessible, our classrooms to have braille, our books to be available in alternate formats, our intersections to be navigable, our screens to have nonvisual interfaces, our transit information to be readable, and our products to have instructions that we can access, but the reality is that most often this is not the case. Are we making progress? Absolutely. And arguably, the only way we can attempt to insure future progress is not to abandone our advocacy attempts.

Yet, how much effort have we, as disabled people, put into accessibility, non-discrimination, and inclusion already? With the millions of websites, apps, products, documents, and software programs that still remain inaccessible to blind people despite our combined best efforts, might shifting our focus to increased usage of remote sighted assistance technologies be the most practical next step? Maybe it is and maybe it is not. I think we as blind individuals may want to take a hard look at that question. There are a variety of angles to consider and possible outcomes to explore. Ultimately, we may find that the answer is not a binary one. Perhaps we will find that we want a balanced approach, one that includes accessibility advocacy and remote assistance both. That solution might be a wise one. However, the implementation of that balanced approach will take some careful thought and discussion. There are many competing interests at play here, and reasons for promoting any one solution at any one time may vary depending upon the interests of the persons or group promoting them. Additionally, when questions of funding arise, different groups may insist upon different levels of compromise. Before those tough decisions get made, I’d like us to have had a few more dialogues about the above scenarios so that we can be clear about what we want and why we want it.

Moreover, there is a difference between access and accessibility. Access may mean that a person with a disability can ultimately get a thing done. Accessibility, on the other hand, generally means that the object was designed in such a way that a person with a disability can utilize it with little extra help. This is not to say that accessibility inherently makes a person more independent than access does, or that either is superior, it is just to say that the two things are quite different. Remote assistance technologies do get us access to things, but they do not necessarily make those things more accessible. However, in the sense that we are able to participate effectively in the world and do the things that we want to do, both access and accessibility are quite valuable. Even so, when resources are limited, we may find that we as blind people may have to decide which we most prefer, access or accessibility. Then we may need to decide in which circumstances we might prefer one to the other, and how far we might be willing to go to obtain them. When do we stand our ground and insist upon accessibility, and when do we feel confident that access is an acceptable solution?

Final Thoughts

I think this issue is a crucial one for us to consider from various angles. Personally, I have thought about the above issues a lot as a blind woman and as the parent of a low vision child. I have thought it through from the perspective of an employed college-educated person who has had the benefit of some excellent blindness skill training. I like to think of myself as someone who has a healthy balance of technology and basic technique mastery in my life. In short, I love technology, I love braille, I also love the feeling I get from independently walking out in the world with my cane. I am an early adopter of new technologies, and yet I have spent much of my life hiring human readers, drivers, and sighted assistants to get certain jobs done. My life experiences have helped me to understand that not always is the highest-tech solution the best one, nor should it be viewed as a last resort. I say this to give context to my views, not as a way of insisting that my own perspective is the best or most correct. There are doubtless many other perspectives from individuals with other very valid points, and that is why I believe further dialogue is necessary.

Remote assistance technologies are here to stay, and it is up to us as blind people to define what role we want them to play in our lives. These technologies are not the solution to all our problems nor are they the cause of them. They are new tools, and like any tools, they are only as good or bad as the hands that use them. Yet there will be many hands and minds who will want to shape the future of these tools for us. Before a private company, a government agency, a tech developer, a federal legislator, or a field of professionals try to define their role for us, we must come together to ask the hard questions, share our perspectives, and make the tough, but important, decisions about what we want for ourselves, our children, and for our futures.

We love hearing from our listeners! Please feel free to talk with us in the comments. What do you like? How could we make the show better? What topics would you like us to cover on future shows?

If you use Twitter, let’s get connected! Please follow Allison (@AlliTalk) and Darrell (@darrell).

Finally, if you prefer Facebook, feel free to connect with Allison there.

Apple Listens, Sometimes, and Advocacy Can Be Worth Doing

by

When Apple released iOS 11 on Sept. 19, it dealt a nasty surprise in the email inboxes of those of us whom happen to be blind. A change in VoiceOver meant that, everytime we used a feature intended to help us increase our productivity, we ran the risk of deleting emails we wanted to keep. In his Sept. 29 blog post Cupertino, we have a design problem, blind community influencer Jonathan Mosen delivered a thoughtful explanation of the issue and members of the connected, online blind community began a concerted effort asking Apple to reverse its design decision. As explained in Cupertino, thank you for listening, Apple restored reliable email management to its blind customers in iOS 11.1.

On Nov. 8, Marty Schultz, the developer of the wildly popular Blindfold Games, informed the connected, online blind community he would no longer be able to create new games or update existing games due to a new rule Apple imposed on its app developers in an effort to declutter the app store. Blind people immediately began asking Apple for a reversal of the misunderstanding behind the decision. Mosen wrote an open letter to Tim Cook and an online petition was started asking Eddy Cue to review and reverse the company’s decision.

What do these turns of events tell us? First, while by no means perfect, decisionmakers at Apple are listening to and acting upon the accessibility concerns of blind customers. Second, blind people are proactively advocating for their accessibility rights, providing the feedback companies like Apple need to see in order to make the right decisions. Without our advocacy, I am quite confident many blind people would be deleting the wrong emails in iOS 12 and Blindfold Games would cease to exist. There’s a heck of a lot of work that still needs to be done. Let’s encourage each other and keep on fighting the good accessibility fight!

Apple Considering Accessible On-screen Text and Described Videos at Future Events

by

After watching Apple’s June 5 WWDC keynote and listening to a summary of the event on Jonathan Mosen’s Blind Side Podcast, it dawned on me that we blind people are missing a lot of critical information!

Many of the videos played at Apple’s events lack sufficient dialogue to be comprehensible by a blind person without audio description, and there’s a lot of text displayed through on-screen slides that is never verbally mentioned by the presenters. On the Blind Side podcast, it was necessary for Jonathan’s sighted daughter to describe the videos and read the on-screen text in order for the blind podcasters to understand important details from the keynote, some of which may significantly impact those of us who rely on the company’s built-in accessibility.

On June 7, I decided to write the following note to Apple’s accessibility team asking that audio descriptions of on-screen text and videos be provided moving forward.

Hello Apple Accessibility Team,
While watching the WWDC keynote, I observed there was no way to hear audio descriptions of the on-screen slide content or the cool videos.
I have since learned about crucial accessibility improvements in software such as iOS 11 that were not verbally mentioned but were presented only through slides.
Have I missed something, or does Apple leave out this critical information?
In view of Mr. Cook’s declaration that accessibility is a “human right,” I am asking Apple to provide audio description of slides and videos during its events moving forward.
I look forward to hearing from someone on your team soon.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Darrell Hilliker
Accessibility Evangelist
BlindAccessJournal.com

I received the following same-day response from someone on the company’s accessibility team.

Hello Darrell,
Thank you for your email.  We appreciate the feedback and will pass this on to the appropriate people for their consideration.
Apple Accessibility

While the response was generic as corporate communications go, I am hopeful that the “appropriate people” will take this feedback from a loyal Apple customer seriously and that, moving forward, we will experience accessible on-screen text and described videos at future Apple events.

If you agree that Apple should, indeed, take care to fully include its customers and developers with disabilities by providing accessible on-screen text, audio description and closed captions, please add your voice to mine. Simply visit Apple’s Accessibility website and email the team.