In message , at 19:51:03 on Sun, 28 Aug
2016, d remarked:
I'm constantly amazed by the ability of blind persons to navigate
(literally and metaphorically) the modern world, and after all they'll
have had years of practice.

There's a big difference between navigating a physical world with touch
feedback and trying to use a flat screen with none other than a voice that
may or may not help.

Clearly, in this case the accessibility software does work.

Unless there is some documentated verification by someone who is blind that
this is the case I'll take it with a pinch.

The evidence is the way the accessibility software exists (if it didn't
work it would have been discontinued by now) and how Uber has a document
explaining how to use it.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:51:03 on Sun, 28 Aug
2016, d remarked:
I'm constantly amazed by the ability of blind persons to navigate
(literally and metaphorically) the modern world, and after all they'll
have had years of practice.

There's a big difference between navigating a physical world with touch
feedback and trying to use a flat screen with none other than a voice that
may or may not help.

Clearly, in this case the accessibility software does work.

Unless there is some documentated verification by someone who is blind that
this is the case I'll take it with a pinch.

The evidence is the way the accessibility software exists (if it didn't
work it would have been discontinued by now) and how Uber has a document
explaining how to use it.

That's because it has been told to comply with ADA, not because a single
person uses it.

http://www.recode.net/2015/9/18/1161...d-a-surprising

http://www.newmobility.com/2015/01/f...er-comply-ada/

https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ply-to-us.html

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 06:57:05 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Unless there is some documentated verification by someone who is blind that
this is the case I'll take it with a pinch.

The evidence is the way the accessibility software exists (if it didn't
work it would have been discontinued by now) and how Uber has a document
explaining how to use it.

That's because it has been told to comply with ADA, not because a single
person uses it.

http://www.recode.net/2015/9/18/1161...d-a-surprising

http://www.newmobility.com/2015/01/f...er-comply-ada/

https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ply-to-us.html

Which of those say it's not used (I don't have time to read them all).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 06:57:05 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Unless there is some documentated verification by someone who is blind that
this is the case I'll take it with a pinch.

The evidence is the way the accessibility software exists (if it didn't
work it would have been discontinued by now) and how Uber has a document
explaining how to use it.

That's because it has been told to comply with ADA, not because a single
person uses it.

http://www.recode.net/2015/9/18/1161...d-a-surprising

http://www.newmobility.com/2015/01/f...er-comply-ada/

https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ply-to-us.html

Which of those say it's not used (I don't have time to read them all).

They don't day it isn't used (no-one seems to know). They do say Uber
claimed it didn't need to comply with ADA, but was forced to do so. There's
another story about the app itself:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/wilbutler/u...JoW#.sfoAmlQJl

Quote:

Blind people have been largely unable to access Uber on iPhone for more
than six weeks, despite activists’ repeated requests for a bug fix. Though
the company has partially addressed the problem, blind activists say it’s
still hard — in some cases, prohibitively so — to use.

“They’ve somewhat addressed one issue, but they’ve created others,� Scott
Blanks, deputy director of the San Francisco LightHouse for the Blind and
Visually Impaired, told BuzzFeed News. “It is by no means a fix. It’s
concerning to me that after multiple phone calls, this is still an issue.�

Most blind iOS users rely on VoiceOver, the screen reader built into every
new iPhone that works (almost) perfectly with all native apps. But on Jan.
26, Uber released an update that rendered the “Request UberX� button, among
other functions, effectively invisible to the VoiceOver reader. And the
fixes the company has since issued have failed to fully address the
problem.

....


This isn’t the first time Uber has raised the ire of accessibility
advocates. After a series of incidents in which Uber drivers denied blind
passengers rides, the California branch of the National Federation of the
Blind has alleged that Uber is violating the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Uber filed to have the case dismissed, but on March 3, a federal judge
tentatively ruled that the lawsuit could proceed.

“It’s disappointing that Uber has chosen to try to litigate this case
rather than sitting down at the table with us to negotiate a mutually
beneficial solution,� said Tim Elder, who is representing multiple
plaintiffs in the case. “Uber has the potential to be wonderful for blind
people, and the plaintiffs are trying to ensure that that potential is
realized for all blind people, including blind people with service
animals.�

In message
-septem
ber.org, at 07:18:44 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:

Most blind iOS users rely on VoiceOver, the screen reader built into every
new iPhone that works (almost) perfectly with all native apps.

Well, there you go. It does work after all.
--
Roland Perry

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 06:57:05 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Unless there is some documentated verification by someone who is blind
that
this is the case I'll take it with a pinch.

The evidence is the way the accessibility software exists (if it didn't
work it would have been discontinued by now) and how Uber has a
document
explaining how to use it.

That's because it has been told to comply with ADA, not because a single
person uses it.

http://www.recode.net/2015/9/18/1161...d-a-surprising

http://www.newmobility.com/2015/01/f...er-comply-ada/

https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ply-to-us.html

Which of those say it's not used (I don't have time to read them all).

They don't day it isn't used (no-one seems to know). They do say Uber
claimed it didn't need to comply with ADA, but was forced to do so.

which kind of proves my earlier point, that you denied to the extent of
insulting me for believing it, that Uber's MO is to ignore compliance with
local laws until forced to do so.

tim

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septem
ber.org, at 07:18:44 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:

Most blind iOS users rely on VoiceOver, the screen reader built into every
new iPhone that works (almost) perfectly with all native apps.

Well, there you go. It does work after all.

.... some of the time.

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 08:02:17 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:

Most blind iOS users rely on VoiceOver, the screen reader built into every
new iPhone that works (almost) perfectly with all native apps.

Well, there you go. It does work after all.

... some of the time.

Most of the time apparently (until a broken-app comes along).
--
Roland Perry

tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 06:57:05 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Unless there is some documentated verification by someone who is blind
that
this is the case I'll take it with a pinch.

The evidence is the way the accessibility software exists (if it didn't
work it would have been discontinued by now) and how Uber has a
document
explaining how to use it.

That's because it has been told to comply with ADA, not because a single
person uses it.

http://www.recode.net/2015/9/18/1161...d-a-surprising

http://www.newmobility.com/2015/01/f...er-comply-ada/

https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ply-to-us.html

Which of those say it's not used (I don't have time to read them all).

They don't day it isn't used (no-one seems to know). They do say Uber
claimed it didn't need to comply with ADA, but was forced to do so.

which kind of proves my earlier point, that you denied to the extent of
insulting me for believing it, that Uber's MO is to ignore compliance with
local laws until forced to do so.

No, I was asking you for evidence that they were any worse than other
minicab firms. You alleged that they were, but with no evidence.

As far as I can see, they do just enough to comply, in each country in
which they operate. That can mean they're actually better than local
minicab firms, as customers in undemanding countries will benefit from some
of the features that were added to comply with rules in more demanding
countries.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 06:57:05 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Unless there is some documentated verification by someone who is
blind
that
this is the case I'll take it with a pinch.

The evidence is the way the accessibility software exists (if it
didn't
work it would have been discontinued by now) and how Uber has a
document
explaining how to use it.

That's because it has been told to comply with ADA, not because a
single
person uses it.

http://www.recode.net/2015/9/18/1161...d-a-surprising

http://www.newmobility.com/2015/01/f...er-comply-ada/

https://www.ada.gov/briefs/uber_soi.pdf

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ply-to-us.html

Which of those say it's not used (I don't have time to read them all).

They don't day it isn't used (no-one seems to know). They do say Uber
claimed it didn't need to comply with ADA, but was forced to do so.

which kind of proves my earlier point, that you denied to the extent of
insulting me for believing it, that Uber's MO is to ignore compliance
with
local laws until forced to do so.

No, I was asking you for evidence that they were any worse than other
minicab firms. You alleged that they were, but with no evidence.

The evidence is that they argue that the rules don't apply to them because
they aren't a cab company, but a tech company (and as a new start-up deserve
special favours)

they aren't and they don't

tim