![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Over the years, I've seen a lot of different approaches taken to advocacy for the blind. These range from the angry demanding to the diplomatic requesting. Usually it's in regard to what a company has done or, at least as often, hasn't done.
I've had the opportunity, though, to witness something all too rare in the field of advocacy for the blind: proactive advocacy. It was with respect to Twitter. Jonathan Mosen, a very well-known name in the area of technology for the blind, saw a possible area of concern in some Twitter experimental features that were being tested. Read about it here.
Without restating the already stated, Mr. Mosen was simply expressing a concern, a potential future reality as Twitter attempts to reinvent itself with more visual appeal. No rage, no whining, just a real concern, expressed in a polite, matter-of-fact manner. I applauded Mr. Mosen at the time for bringing this to our attention. Had it been me, I probably would have skipped right over this potential area of concern. As it was, I was made aware of it, I agreed this was something to watch out for, I moved on.
Mr. Mosen's blog entry caught the attention of the Twitter people themselves, and they actually took the time to respond to Mr. Mosen's concerns. You can read about that here. In sum, Twitter said they are aware of our concerns and the number of blind people using Twitter, and have every plan to maintain accessibility.
MR. Mosen has come under fire for, say the scoffers, his "sky is falling" approach. They (the scoffers) couldn't be further off the mark.
What Mr. Mosen did was identify a potential problem, bring it to our attention, and even have it addressed by the company before it became an issue. IT's far easier to build accessibility into new features as they are developed than it is to retrofit features with accessibility. Those who believe the best advocacy is screaming at companies when they make mistakes should consider how much more effective it would be to try to respectfully prevent the mistakes from being made in the first place, as Mr. Mosen has here done.
This is an example of advocacy at its best and most effective. Anyone who knows us both will tell you, Mr. Mosen and I disagree on a whole lot of things. But when he's right, he's right, and I tip my hat to him for showing us how advocacy should be done.
I've had the opportunity, though, to witness something all too rare in the field of advocacy for the blind: proactive advocacy. It was with respect to Twitter. Jonathan Mosen, a very well-known name in the area of technology for the blind, saw a possible area of concern in some Twitter experimental features that were being tested. Read about it here.
Without restating the already stated, Mr. Mosen was simply expressing a concern, a potential future reality as Twitter attempts to reinvent itself with more visual appeal. No rage, no whining, just a real concern, expressed in a polite, matter-of-fact manner. I applauded Mr. Mosen at the time for bringing this to our attention. Had it been me, I probably would have skipped right over this potential area of concern. As it was, I was made aware of it, I agreed this was something to watch out for, I moved on.
Mr. Mosen's blog entry caught the attention of the Twitter people themselves, and they actually took the time to respond to Mr. Mosen's concerns. You can read about that here. In sum, Twitter said they are aware of our concerns and the number of blind people using Twitter, and have every plan to maintain accessibility.
MR. Mosen has come under fire for, say the scoffers, his "sky is falling" approach. They (the scoffers) couldn't be further off the mark.
What Mr. Mosen did was identify a potential problem, bring it to our attention, and even have it addressed by the company before it became an issue. IT's far easier to build accessibility into new features as they are developed than it is to retrofit features with accessibility. Those who believe the best advocacy is screaming at companies when they make mistakes should consider how much more effective it would be to try to respectfully prevent the mistakes from being made in the first place, as Mr. Mosen has here done.
This is an example of advocacy at its best and most effective. Anyone who knows us both will tell you, Mr. Mosen and I disagree on a whole lot of things. But when he's right, he's right, and I tip my hat to him for showing us how advocacy should be done.
