Blind Access Journal

Blind Access Journal is a dynamic, constantly evolving blind community resource. We are experimenting with a blogging capability known as trackback. This new functionality enables aggregation and exchange of articles and associated comments among blogs. Trackback provides us with the potential to expand the influence of the journal throughout the Internet community and to track the progress of our efforts. Your feedback and patience are appreciated as we are bound to cut our teeth on this new system in the beginning.

You may be wondering what happened to all the old comments. They’re not gone. Simply click the link to the post time for each article to view all comments entered before the implementation of trackback. Please use the new “Comment” and “Trackback” links to submit all new responses.

We feel we have improved the overall quality and usefulness of Blind Access Journal by adding this new comment management and trackback functionality. As always, we welcome your feedback and will do our very best to resolve all reported issues these new features may cause.

Here’s some food for thought. If a sighted person is clumsy or disorganized, it is typically accepted and just blown off as being no big deal. If a blind person exhibits the same behavior, it is immediately attributed to their blindness and considered to be further evidence of the supposed overall incompetence of the blind in general. Like it or not, we must, at all times, stay on our toes and work tirelessly to prove ourselves to be above this ridiculous double standard.

March 9, 2005

Dear GoDaddy Management team,

I attempted to perform a Whois domain name search at
http://whois.godaddy.com
and was stopped dead in my tracks by your company’s visual verification process. I am a blind information technology professional with over ten years of
experience, an accessibility advocate and publisher of the Blind Access Journal found at
http://www.blindaccessjournal.com.

I am not able to physically see the characters in the image to type them into the edit field in order to pass a visual verification test. Though the purpose
of these tests is to insure that only a live human being is using the service, they’re really testing and admitting only sighted humans when no accessible
alternatives are provided. In your company’s case, a telephone number (480-505-8899) is provided as a means for gaining access to the Whois information
when the user is blind or visually impaired.
I called 480-505-8899 this morning. After working with your IVR, where no mention is made of the correct option to select for this accessibility situation,
I spoke with Max. He was unable to simply provide me with a verification code, but offered to verbally read the requested Whois information over the phone.
He was helpful but did not have the answers to most of my questions about the inaccessibility of your visual verification process and was unable to tell
me whether or not TDD service was available for the deaf-blind. I was transferred to Dirk, Max’s supervisor, who advised me to write to this e-mail address.

According to the current state of the art in visual verification technology, a commonly accepted way to provide an accessible alternative is to allow the
user to click a link that plays an audio version of the characters being displayed in the image. I am strongly requesting that GoDaddy implement this
audio alternative right away to enable reasonable, independent access to this information for most of the blind and visually impaired. Please do this
in very short order. Companies such as Microsoft, PayPal and SpamArrest already employ this accessibility measure. Please also continue to offer the
alternative of calling the telephone number for those who are unable to use the audio solution, such as those whom are deaf-blind. Of course, please insure
that TDD service is available at this telephone number, or offer another method of contact such as e-mail or instant messaging for these users.

GoDaddy is a leader on the Internet. Please show this leadership by providing real accessibility to your visual verification processes. Enable the audio
solution right away!

Blind Access Journal is covering the impact of inaccessible visual verification systems on the blind, exploring current and innovative new solutions to
the issues and advocating for implementation of accessibility to these systems by everyone who relies on them to protect the security of Internet resources.
A copy of this letter is being posted on the journal. We in the blind community hope to be able to place GoDaddy into the good guys camp as an example
of how to protect Internet users against spam and other abuse while allowing all human beings access to products and services regardless of disability.

Sincerely,

Darrell Shandrow

Publisher

Blind Access Journal: http://www.blindaccessjournal.com

editor@blindaccessjournal.com

After sending this letter to suggestions@godaddy.com as recommended by Dirk on the phone this morning, I received a mail delivery failure notice. I hope this is, in fact, a real e-mail address and that GoDaddy is dealing with technical difficulties. On my lunch break, I will be attempting to determine how to effectively complete the delivery of this letter to Godaddy Software. Let’s keep fighting the good fight! Inaccessible visual verification schemes pose a clear and present danger to our continued ability to access the Internet!

Google is by far the most widely utilized accessible search engine on the Internet. The company went public last year and is quickly adding new, exciting products and services! As blind people, we must take steps right now to insure that Google remains on the right track with respect to the accessibility of its services to all Internet users, including those with disabilities.

If you are blind, Google’s current implementation of visual verification locks you out! Google uses visual verification to test for the presence of a human being before allowing the user to perform basic tasks such as creating a Google account or resetting the account’s password. Unfortunately, at the moment, no audio alternative to this visual verification scheme is provided. If you can’t physically see the picture, you can’t enter the characters displayed and, thus, you are barred from creating the account or resetting the password. I am dealing with this issue right now! I need to reset my Google account password, and the inaccessible visual verification system is locking me out. It is 7:50 in the morning. There is no sighted person available to complete this task on my behalf!

We must take the initiative with Google right now to insist that an accessible audio based alternative be implemented for the current visual verification scheme. Please follow this link to report the problem and ask Google to implement an accessible audio alternative to its visual verification scheme as soon as possible. There are thousands of blind Internet users, and tens of thousands of sighted family, friends and colleagues who care about us! Let’s flood Google with thousands of requests to solve this problem and see what we can accomplish through our collective accessibility advocacy efforts!

Today the United States Supreme Court begins hearing a couple of cases concerning the display of the Ten Commandments on government property. At issue is the separation of church and state language in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Those opposing the displays contend that it violates this separation by showing support of particular religious beliefs on the part of the government. These opposition groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, believe that absolutely nothing of any possible religious significance should be portrayed by the government in any manner. Those supporting the displays contend that they aren’t really religious, that they represent a part of the bedrock upon which the United States of America was founded in 1776 with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Supporters of the Ten Commandments are absolutely right on this one! The Ten Commandments are shared between the three world religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. They represent the essentials of good, solid family values. They have also stood the test of time, remaining important pillars of proper social conduct for thousands of years!

I’m sure you’re asking yourself, “what does this have to do with advocating for accessibility?” The answer is, “plenty”. The Ten Commandments represent a part of the bedrock on which modern Western civilization and the United States of America have been founded and continue to exist today! Our very Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal”. Amendments to the Constitution, such as the 8th amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, the 13th Amendment rejecting slavery and the 19th amendment granting women the right to vote, serve to reaffirm the conviction of the United States of America that human rights are an absolutely critical part of a democratic American society and that all must be empowered to participate. It is this ability to participate which we seek through greater access to information. The United States of America was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation! The separation between church and state provided in the First Amendment to our Constitution prevents the government from forcing us to worship Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. This necessary separation is a far cry from the elimination of religion and other symbols of American tradition being called for by organizations such as ACLU. Even if you are agnostic, atheist or otherwise don’t consider yourself a religious person, you can still support retaining the symbols of our heritage such as the display of the Ten Commandments! It is not about religion, but about our traditions and values as a nation! As always, all comments are welcome.

Terry Schiavo is minimally conscious, but, apparently, that just isn’t good enough. After years of legal wrangling, the feeding tube keeping her alive is due to be removed tomorrow, February 25. After this happens, she will suffer and slowly die of dehydration! While Terri dies, her husband will be free to carry out the rest of his life, perhaps finally marrying the woman with whom he has been carrying on an adulterous relationship, baring two children in the process! Paying the medical bills involved with caring for Terri must represent an “undue burden” which the courts are about to lift from his shoulders forever.

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family is absolutely right in this case when he said on Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes show this evening, February 24, that removal of the feeding tube is tantamount to murder. If the decision to remove Terri’s feeding tube stands, where will the line be drawn in the future? What constitutes an “undue burden” on society? At what point is it justified to murder someone rather than to reasonably accomodate their needs? Today we find ourselves deeply concerned about issues of accessibility, transportation options and social attitudes regarding our blindness. We advocate for such reasonable accomodations as greater accessibility of information technology and the right to continue traveling on airlines with our guide dogs. Some reject our efforts claiming that they represent an “undue burden” to the operation of their business. Where does that “undue burden” argument end? Will we find ourselves in the distant future in a struggle for our very lives? Bioethicists like Dr. Peter Singer must be delighted.

We must speak out loudly and clearly against murder and euthanasia in all its forms: abortion, physician assisted suicide and withdrawal of life saving medical treatment! This should be a relevant and lively topic of discussion. All comments are highly encouraged.

Once upon a time there was an employee who agreed to work on a holiday. This employee relied on the city bus system in order to travel to work, but was not disabled in any way. On the day he was scheduled to work, he decided he didn’t want to do that after all. He wanted to enjoy a holiday away from the office. When his boss called to ask him why he wasn’t working, he said that the buses weren’t running since it was a holiday. The boss had to make other arrangements to cover the absence.

The reason for the employee’s absence was a total lie. The buses were, in fact, running on that day. One of the employees colleagues explained this fact to the boss. The lie was accepted largely without consequence to the liar. The following lesson was not learned on that day:

Honesty is always the best policy.

Again, I repeat. Don’t lie! It’s wrong! Period.

This is a follow up to Red Alert: Act Now to Stop Regulatory Threat to Air Travel for Blind Guide Dog Owners! as posted on Wednesday, February 16. I hope it provides additional clarification of the issue at hand and the kind of comments we feel must be filed with the Department of Transportation in order to best protect the rights of the blind and other people with disabilities who rely on service animals.

The blind community is specifically concerned about the following language in Appendix A of Part 382 concerning service animals that do not completely fit under the passenger’s seat or in front of the passenger:

Part 382 does not require carriers to
make modifications that would constitute an
undue burden or would fundamentally alter
their programs (382.7(c)). Therefore, the
following are not required in providing
accommodations for users of service animals
and are examples of what might realistically
be viewed as creating an undue burden:

• Asking another passenger to give up
  the space in front of his or her seat to
  accommodate a service animal
• Denying transportation to any
  individual on a flight in order to provide aaccommodation to a passenger with a service
  animal
• Furnishing more than one seat per
  ticket
• Providing a seat in a class of service
  other than the one the passenger has
  purchased.

As airlines try to fit as many seats as possible on the aircraft, leg room is at an all time minimum. This negatively impacts the ability to fit service animals in the appropriate places. There is evidence from the experiences of owners of guide dogs and other service animals showing that dogs that used to fit under or in front of the seat ten years ago no longer completely fit. Truth be told, Karen’s guide dog, Douglas, does not technically fit in front of her bulkhead seat, since he tends to take up space in the adjacent seat when he lies on the floor. Though this is no problem at all when Karen and I travel together, it could present a problem for her traveling alone if the proposed rule amendments stand. Weighing only 65 pounds, Douglas is a typically sized guide dog. Enforced by an airline, the rule above could thus effectively barr blind people who rely on guide dogs from traveling by air at all.

We would like to see this “undue burden” language changed so that airlines clearly understand that they may not violate the human rights of service animal owners. Specifically, we recommend the following new “undue burden” language:

Part 382 does not require carriers to
make modifications that would constitute an
undue burden or would fundamentally alter
their programs (382.7(c)). Therefore, the
following are not required in providing
accommodations for users of service animals
and are examples of what might realistically
be viewed as creating an undue burden:

• Demanding another passenger to give up
  the space in front of his or her seat to
  accommodate a service animal. It is required to request that an adjacent passenger voluntarily give up this space if no other reasonable solution exists, but that passenger has the right to deny the request.
• Denying transportation to any
  individual on a flight in order to provide aaccommodation to a passenger with a service
  animal. If no other reasonable solution exists, it is required that such a request be made for an adjacent passenger to take a later flight. Incentives, such as discounted future travel, may be given such a passenger as deemed appropriate.
• Furnishing more than one seat per
  ticket when the aircraft is completely full.

Though this language continues to recognize situations where an “undue burden” might exist, it provides ways to rectify issues without undue harm to the person with a disability. Note that the original language defining the moving of a passenger to a seat in a different class of service has been removed. We strongly believe that, when no other solution to an issue exists, moving a passenger with a disability to business or even first class seating should be attempted before forcing the passenger to deplane. We at Blind Access Journal will shortly be filing these comments to the Department of Transportation concerning the air travel rights of blind guide dog owners and other people with disabilities. We hope everyone reading this will follow suit. If you have anything to add, please feel free to post your constructive comments to guide this important advocacy process.

Proposed regulations by the United States Department of Transportation would require the blind and others who rely on large “service animals” to deplane or ship their companions in the cargo hold! All who care about the blind and others with disabilities MUST act immediately to stop this threat by having the proposed regulatory language changed to allow alternatives that will reasonably accomodate people with disabilities.

What can you do now? Read the Emergency Call to Action sponsored by the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners and submit a comment to the Department of Transportation insisting that the language of the new regulations require the airline industry to reasonably accomodate blind guide dog owners by taking actions such as making voluntary arrangements or moving passengers instead of harming the blind by forcing us off the plane or separating us from our dogs. Everyone who sincerely cares about the blind will take this action immediately!

The following are the public comments I submitted to the Department of Transportation’s Docket Clerk:

February 16, 2005

Docket Clerk

Department of Transportation

400 7th Street, SW., Room PL-401

Washington, DC 20590.

DOCKET NUMBER: OST-2004-19482-1

Dear Docket Clerk,

I am a highly accomplished blind information technology professional, accessibility advocate and publisher of the Blind Access Journal. My girlfriend is a blind professional in the resort hospitality industry who also happens to rely on a guide dog to meet her independent travel needs. We both travel on airlines for business and pleasure from time to time.

I am deeply troubled by dangerous language in the NPRM relating to large service animals that might not fit in front of the passenger’s seat or even in the bulkhead area. Persons with disabilities who rely on such “large” animals cannot rightly be expected to allow their companion to be placed in the aircraft’s cargo hold or be forced to wait for a later flight where the same situation might exist. Since we pay our hard earned money to travel just like everyone else, these undue regulations represent a reduction in the service levels we receive in comparison to customers without disabilities. They would also simply represent an ethical, moral and, perhaps, legal violation of our rights as fully living and breathing human beings and citizens of the United States of America, with all the rights and responsibilities that first class status entails. In a case where a guide dog does not fit in the typical spaces, alternatives must be considered that do not result in undue harm to the disabled person or their service animal. Alternatives might include moving either the person with a disability or a nondisabled person sitting in the adjacent seat to accomodate the service animal, even if that entails moving the passenger to seating in a different part of the cabin such as business or first class. Denial of service to a person with a disability is never appropriate under any circumstances.

Sincerely,

Darrell Shandrow
Publisher
Blind Access Journal: http://www.blindaccessjournal.com
editor@blindaccessjournal.com

Graphical security verification systems (also known as CAPTCHA or Turing tests) are being added to web sites on an increasingly frequent basis. In these schemes, the user is presented with a distorted picture of a word or sequence of numbers and is asked to enter the characters into an edit box. The purpose of these tests is to insure that a live human being, not a script running on a computer, is signing up for an account, placing an order or performing any other task for which spammers and other malicious users of Internet resources might pose a substantial security risk. Graphical security verification tests with no accessible alternatives pose a serious threat to the ability of the blind to continue using the Internet. In the case where these tests are used to secure a registration process, they represent a one-time abridgment of a blind person’s right to gain legitimate independent access to the subscription process. When absolutely necessary, a sighted person can act as a reader, providing the blind user with the information that must be entered into the box. In the case where these tests are applied each time a resource is accessed or an order is placed, these tests represent a complete lock out of the blind from using the resource, since a sighted person isn’t going to be available on a second by second basis. These security tests, when they include no reasonable accessible alternatives, represent nothing less than an artificial violation of the rights of the blind as fully living and breathing human beings and first class citizens, possessing all the rights and responsibilities that status entails. Though these tests claim to check for the presence of live human beings, they are really testing only for the presence of sighted humans. Sight is the price of admission and the blind are essentially being told that they need not apply.

Ticketmaster is an example of a company that has forced the blind to the back of the virtual bus, actually forced them off the bus altogether, by means of the implementation of an inaccessible graphical security verification test. This test comes each time one orders tickets, so it represents a complete, constant lock out. This situation is featured in Turned Away at the Virtual Box Office as published in Voice of the Nation’s Blind, an online magazine of the National Federation of the Blind.

There are currently two common solutions implemented by many companies to work around the visual verification process for blind users: playing an audio file of the contents of the picture and speaking with a customer service representative over the phone. The first solution is incomplete as it remains totally inaccessible for those who are also deaf or severely hearing impaired while the second solution is unacceptable, since these customer service telephone numbers tend not to be staffed 24 hours per day and calls are almost never returned in a timely manner.

Since it is critical for visual verification to include an accessible component, it is equally important that reasonable, workable solutions be devised and implemented in a cooperative fashion between the blind community and the mainstream technology industry. Let’s talk about some specific solutions. I’ll start with the aforementioned audio solution as it currently represents the most widely accepted way of providing immediate accessibility to visual verification. After discussing the audio solution, more innovative techniques will be covered.

Audio

An audio accessibility solution to visual verification provides a link next to the picture. When the blind user clicks the provided link, an audio file containing the same characters as the picture is played. Just as the characters in the picture are deliberately blurred to defeat automated optical character recognition, the audio file is distorted to prevent automated speech recognition. The distortion of these audio files often makes this solution difficult and sometimes even impossible for the user, especially if there is any auditory distraction or hearing impairment. This solution is also totally useless to someone who happens to be deaf-blind. Two examples of companies that are currently using the audio accessibility solution to visual verification are PayPal and Spam Arrest.

E-mail Confirmation

A simple, comprehensive accessibility solution to visual verification might be the use of electronic mail. In this system, the user clicks a link next to the picture and provides their e-mail address. The contents are sent to the user who enters the characters into the box to complete the process. This solution would work for all users, including those who are deaf or hearing impaired. There are a few drawbacks. First, some users might not wish to provide their e-mail address for privacy reasons. Second, it may be possible (though extremely difficult) for an automated script to check the address of the e-mail account, retrieve the verification code and enter it into the box without need of human intervention. Third, since e-mail is considered to be an unreliable postcard type delivery system, this solution might not work for all users, especially if the e-mail containing the verification code can’t be successfully received by the user.

Simple Cognitive Challenge Response

Another comprehensive accessibility solution to visual verification might be to present a simple cognitive challenge. In this system, after clicking the link next to the visual verification, the user would be asked a simple question, such as what is the sum of 10 and 35. Providing the correct answer would allow the user access to the resource. A possible drawback to this solution is the ongoing development of artificial intelligence. Given the allocation of sufficient time and resources, a programmer could write code that might be able to read the questions and provide the correct answers. Asking questions in random formats (sum of 10 and 35 versus 35 plus 10) and use of a vast database of tens or hundreds of thousands of potential questions would serve to make this solution unbreakable to all but the most determined computer scientists.

Automated Telephone Verification

Yet another comprehensive accessible verification solution could be the use of an automated telephone system. After the blind user clicks an appropriately descriptive link next to the typical visual verification, another code is presented along with a telephone number to call. This telephone system would be available for deaf or hearing impaired users by way of TDD support. After calling the telephone number and entering the numeric code supplied on the web page, the telephone system would present the user with the contents of the visual verification process for successful entry into the edit box. This solution can be reasonably protected against compromise, just as are the audio solutions now in use. For the hearing user, the visual verification code is provided in audio format. For the user of a TDD, this information is provided in text that is compatible with such a device. It is highly unlikely that a malicious user is going to own a TDD, so this does not represent a significant compromise. This solution essentially extends current audio verification solutions so that they are accessible to the deaf and hearing impaired while retaining the integrity of the visual verification process, being that it is very difficult or impossible to automate this solution. One drawback would be presented for users of old dial-up Internet connections with only a single telephoneline. Keeping the verification code available in the system for five or ten minutes should enable such a user to disconnect, place the telephone call to retrieve the verification code and reconnect to the Internet to complete the process.

Trusted Assistive Technology

Yet another innovative, comprehensive verification solution could be the provision of the visual verification code in an encrypted form directly to “trusted” assistive technology. Adobe Systems uses this methodology to allow users of screen readers like JAWS access to some kinds of secured PDF documents. The verification code would be encrypted and provided to a screen reader by way of a browser extension or special plug in software. The screen reader could receive, decrypt and provide the code in text form to the user, who could then simply retype it into the edit box exactly as the sighted user does now. Copying and pasting of the code would not be allowed. This solution can’t be easily automated or scripted since it is highly unlikely a malicious user is going to spend hundreds of dollars to purchase a trusted assistive technology product. The inability to copy and paste the verification code would represent a further obstacle to a malicious screen reader user.

A number of innovative solutions to the visual verification test have now been provided. In my estimation, there is absolutely no legitimate reason for any such system to completely lock us out of full participation on the Internet. There will probably be challenges to every solution we offer. No solution, even the visual verification tests themselves, will ever be completely unbreakable. Check out The CAPTCHA Project for examples of ways to break several visual verification tests. As always, your comments are highly encouraged.