@26, that does not mean that CVAA forced Microsoft's hand to make it accessible. CVAA hasn't done shit or I guarantee you I would've heard of it by now. No, those products got accessibility because so many users practically demanded it; the FCC was never involved. In fact, the FCC should not be involved in accessibility; they are the Federal Communications Commission, not the Federal Accessibility Commission, and frankly, I can't exactly trust the president of the FCC given his most recent actions regarding net neutrality. So excuse me if I'm quite doubtful of your words when the law you back is enforced by a corporation with a president that pushes through things without verifying that reviews and such are authentic or not. I thought we, the blind community, had learned that forcing accessibility wouldn't work through passed experiences. I thought we'd all established that some time ago. Apparently we still haven't. Legislation is just another way of forcing accessibility on people. How would you, as a company, feel if I forced something on you like that because I wanted to? Yes, we've asked companies to implement it. But considering the fact that none of us even know some of these companies inner workings, forcing anything on them is not going to end well for us. Our best thing is to wait until it happens and not to force it through like a bull. We are a small minority -- less than 0.2 percent of the population of the entire united states. And yes, I've listend to that youtube video. And most certainly doubt it success rates; nothing is 100 percent successful the first time round. I mean, the CVAA might be partially responsible for closed captioning accessibility, but like I said, forcing companies to do what we want, by the CVAA or otherwise, is exactly the wrong thing to do. It makes us look entitled, arrogant, presumptuous, and bad. That's like you making a program with a framework that's not accessible (GTK on windows, anyone), and then me walking up to you one day and demanding that you make it accessible, right there and then. What would you think if I did that? I'm trying to get you to understand my point of view and clearly your either failing to grasp it, ignoring it, or considering your point of view above mine simply because you've been in the industry longer than I have. Or we're having a miscommunication here. Either way, I'm perfectly getting your point, and am responding with my own responses that are quite logical and well-formed. You say I'm getting the wrong end of the stick; I'm simply trying to understand exactly why you're putting so much faith into a law that's most likely incredibly hard to enforce and that's full of legislative rules that you'd need an entire legal team to understand. I'm also trying to understand exactly how this very law will make discord (or games or any other platform that's communication-wise) accessible; the law is for communications only, not for entire programs. I keep saying that and you keep ignoring it; please stop and actually acknowledge my points or stop trying to debate this with me. If discourse follows the CVAA, they only have to make the communications parts of it accessible; playing a sound when messages are received, that sort of thing. They don't need to make the hole program accessible at all. And guess what? That faithful CVAA that will "cure all the worlds problems" (notice the quotes) will not be able to do much after that. Discourse or steam could make it so that it copies new messages to your clipboard and some such but doesn't allow you to go back in message history (but incorporate message history in the website). That would be perfectly valid in the CVAA.
Furthermore, in one of the posts on here you listed several requirements that you think (yes, you think, you don't know, since you're not a legal expert) would make an app CVAA compliant. Here's my response: the CVAA does not state anywhere that an app has to do or implement any of those things. OCR is acceptable, and a company could justifiably say that, and the problem is, OCR falls within the boundaries of what's acceptable in the CVAA. It makes the app accessible, almost. The CVAA does not state anywhere that an app must be as accessible as the TI84+ mathematics calculator I used in high school for algebra from Texas Instruments. Furthermore, you mentioned 'predictive text', also known as 'autocomplete'. An app does not have to implement that to be CVAA compliant, especially if said app uses no communications visible to the user. In fact, autocomplete/predictive text tends to make accessibility worse in certain cases. And don't get me started about those things that can't be made accessible because of technical limitations (i.e. my computers firmware). Ever heard of PXE boot? By your own logic, such an interface (either PXE or the firmware itself) would need to be made accessible purely because it can communicate over the network. But, of course, I've stated in more than one topic that such a thing is not possible at this time. Guess those computer manufacturers will be fined a few million dollars because the FCC feels that that company has violated a law even though that very company couldn't fix it even if they tried.
"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." — Charles Babbage.