Microsoft against people with disabilities?

From: Russ (Russ.Cooper_at_RC.ON.CA)
Date: 07/14/04

  • Next message: Thor Larholm: "Re: HijackClick 3" 
    Date:         Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:42:39 -0400
To: NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM

    So, Microsoft recommends that you disable Utility Manager via Group
    Policy. Are we now to ask all of our employees with disabilities to
    formally ensure we are aware of them so they can be put into their own
    group in AD such that the Group Policy does not affect them? Or, is
    Microsoft saying they don't need the tools provided by Utility Manager?

    While I'm a huge supporter of getting rid of features in order to gain
    better control over security, removing context sensitive help in Utility
    Manager as a "defense in depth" measure seems like a cop-out to the
    hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of disable people who rely upon
    it to use a device which many I know, consider critical to their ability
    to continue to participate on equal ground with their non-disabled
    friends. Heck, I would never have found out about the Internet were it
    not for a person with a disabled child who created a BBS for her to
    "meet" as many people as possible (greetz to Metropolis if you're still
    around.)

    Call it poorly chosen wording, or downright myopic thinking by people
    without disabilities, someone seems to be forgetting the point of the
    tool.

    Cheers,
    Russ - NTBugtraq Editor

    -----
    NTBugtraq Editor's Note:

    Want to reply to the person who sent this message? This list is configured such that just hitting reply is going to result in the message coming to the list, not to the individual who sent the message. This was done to help reduce the number of Out of Office messages posters received. So if you want to send a reply just to the poster, you'll have to copy their email address out of the message and place it in your TO: field.
    -----

  • Next message: Thor Larholm: "Re: HijackClick 3"