Skew-T diagrams removed because blind people can’t see them

Please don’t read into my objections as anything more than the specific problem I identified. There is no political connotation beyond applying the necessary pressure to fix it.
 
tropicaltidbits.com has a pretty slick interface; lets you select model, geographic region, time, and then you can lasso an area and get a skew-t.
 
If the information presented by the Skew-T diagrams is available other places... why can't visually impaired people use those places? are those places 508-compliant? sauce, goose, and all that...
 
scottd said:
Paul,

I believe this has less to do with vision disabilities, but more about using this NOAA site to make operational decisions as I explain in my blog here.
Click to expand...

Scott, the part of the post that is most concerning is
the main issue is that the organization that administers this site is a research laboratory. The products that they provide should not be used operationally, nor should they be used for operational decision making.…
Click to expand...

Once data is let out in the wild, there is no way to prevent it from being used operationally. The best one can hope for is to disclaim it away.
 
scottd said:
Paul,

I believe this has less to do with vision disabilities, but more about using this NOAA site to make operational decisions as I explain in my blog here.
Click to expand...
Yes Scott, I read that, but I’m thinking BS on their part. As pilots we use many non approved sites and sources to form an opinion of how weather will affect a flight. You make it very clear in your training and books that as pilots it is very important to get a big picture idea of our weather, then drill down for more info using appropriate sources. The official aviation weather info is good, but lacking for some scenarios imo.

The official reason, 508 compliance, is ridiculous. That is not a reason to withhold this formerly publicly available, publicly funded data. Fix the 508 compliance issue, while keeping the info available. I’m sure the blind pilots will agree.

If there is a concern about how the info is used, add another disclaimer and be done with it.
 
scottd said:
This is from aircraft reports. Not all aircraft are equipped with a humidity sensor and most of the reports are going to be around major cities where you will see a "salad bowl" effect as aircraft climb and descend through the airspace. Plus, it only shows observational data and doesn't tell you much about what might happen in three or four hours.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you commented here, please keep us posted.
 
I thought this was from the Onion it's so absurd. But no, I checked SkewT LogP Pro app on my phone, which I use a lot, and it's blank.
 
PaulS said:
…If there is a concern about how the info is used, add another disclaimer and be done with it.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that may not be possible currently, dependent on the underlying legislation.

The good news is policy and even legislation can be changed given time to do so.
 
Just curious: What would a blind person use one of these diagrams for?
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Huh. Another thread complaining about the government. Imagine that…

There’s getting to be an awful lot of political cropdusting going on here these days: obviously political posts done in passing with the hope nobody notices the smell till it’s too late.
Click to expand...

And it probably deserves every bit of it.
 
Are there any blind pilots? If not, why not? perhaps a class action suit against airplane manufacturers is in order to force them to make airplanes that blind people can fly.
 
JOhnH said:
Are there any blind pilots? If not, why not? perhaps a class action suit against airplane manufacturers is in order to force them to make airplanes that blind people can fly.
Click to expand...

FAA medical is what stops them. Ditto for blind drivers, eye test any time you renew your license.
Interesting there’s no hearing tests, so you can have deaf pilots? Doesn’t seem fair?
Best part of the requirements for visually impaired, web sites have to provide reader pages, ie pages without the popups/junk.
 
iamtheari said:
Airline dispatching. Understanding the atmosphere. Dreaming. They're not made for pilots, they just happen to be very useful to pilots.
Click to expand...
People seem to forget that the audience for all NOAA data is not solely pilots. There are many users and stakeholders of the NOAA data system, including non-aviation government agencies, private industry, and academia. People of mixed accessibility exist in all of those groups (and as pointed out, even in aviation in non-pilot roles).

Given that it’s 2024 and the NOAA had not yet met the pretty basic accessibility requirements of section 508, it seems they needed a mandate to do it as they were not doing it voluntarily.
 
Government websites need to be 508 compliant.

www.justice.gov

Section 508 Home Page

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov
"Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their information and communication technology (ICT) is accessible to people with disabilities, unless certain exceptions apply. Specifically, Section 508 requires federal agencies to ensure that ICT they develop, procure, maintain, or use allows employees with disabilities and individuals with disabilities who are members of the public to have access to and use of information and data. This access should be comparable to that available to employees and members of the public without disabilities."

Most non-gov't websites are also 508 compliant. Not hard to do. Basically means adding bits to the HTML to make it easier for screen readers and other tools to use the website. And yes, blind people are a subset of the category of people with disabilities.

Why not save the rage bait for X/twitter/facebook? You'll get some likes there.
1727967593494.png
 
UngaWunga said:
Government websites need to be 508 compliant.

www.justice.gov

Section 508 Home Page

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov
"Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their information and communication technology (ICT) is accessible to people with disabilities, unless certain exceptions apply. Specifically, Section 508 requires federal agencies to ensure that ICT they develop, procure, maintain, or use allows employees with disabilities and individuals with disabilities who are members of the public to have access to and use of information and data. This access should be comparable to that available to employees and members of the public without disabilities."

Most non-gov't websites are also 508 compliant. Not hard to do. Basically means adding bits to the HTML to make it easier for screen readers and other tools to use the website. And yes, blind people are a subset of the category of people with disabilities.

Why not save the rage bait for X/twitter/facebook? You'll get some likes there.
Click to expand...
Can we be okay with the need for section 508 compliance and still be upset that a valuable tool that can help with ADM was shelved on the back of that? It’s like a bizarro world of expectation bias in here, where some folks want this to be about one thing or the other, but it’s about both.

Folks here are exactly the audience where information about this is not only brought to light, but also an audience that potentially stands to lose from the oversight, and can speak to how it affects them. Talking about taking it to other social for “likes” is just projection.

I’m not asking anyone to shelve the 508 requirements, I’m asking them to fix the page.
 
scottd said:
Paul,

Personally knowing all of the researchers in this specific organization, they are frustrated as well. When the gov't was shutdown years ago because Congress couldn't pass a budget, this site was deemed to be not "operationally necessary" so the server was shut down without any notice. Seems silly, but I can understand why.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone blames the researchers. Sounds like a bureaucrat’s issue.

Thanks for keeping us posted.
 
UngaWunga said:
Government websites need to be 508 compliant.

www.justice.gov

Section 508 Home Page

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov
"Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their information and communication technology (ICT) is accessible to people with disabilities, unless certain exceptions apply. Specifically, Section 508 requires federal agencies to ensure that ICT they develop, procure, maintain, or use allows employees with disabilities and individuals with disabilities who are members of the public to have access to and use of information and data. This access should be comparable to that available to employees and members of the public without disabilities."

Most non-gov't websites are also 508 compliant. Not hard to do. Basically means adding bits to the HTML to make it easier for screen readers and other tools to use the website. And yes, blind people are a subset of the category of people with disabilities.

Why not save the rage bait for X/twitter/facebook? You'll get some likes there.
View attachment 134006
Click to expand...
First of all, I don’t know where this rage thing is coming from, the only emotion I’m sensing is those upset at me pointing out the absurdity of shutting a site like this down to the public because some can’t see these graphs. Leave the graphs available while this problem is addressed . I really do believe this is an attempt to make it seem like all its information conforms to this standard. Typical bureaucratic response.

Secondly, I fortunately don’t have a handicap that prevents me from viewing one of these graphs. But I’m struggling to imagine a solution to this issue that will allow a non sighted individual to use this graph to the extent that some one sighted potentially could. Maybe you have some ideas?
 
Flying Keys said:
Can we be okay with the need for section 508 compliance and still be upset that a valuable tool that can help with ADM was shelved on the back of that? It’s like a bizarro world of expectation bias in here, where some folks want this to be about one thing or the other, but it’s about both.

Folks here are exactly the audience where information about this is not only brought to light, but also an audience that potentially stands to lose from the oversight, and can speak to how it affects them. Talking about taking it to other social for “likes” is just projection.

I’m not asking anyone to shelve the 508 requirements, I’m asking them to fix the page.
Click to expand...
Section 508 was last updated in January 2017.


Given it’s been over 7 years since that rule was enacted and NOAA just had that page taken down, my guess is that this isn’t the first time the NOAA has been warned about its non-compliance. None of you cared about the section 508 non-compliance prior to this occurring did you? Seems like a stick approach is being taken.
 
AKiss20 said:
Section 508 was last updated in January 2017.


Given it’s been over 7 years since that rule was enacted and NOAA just had that page taken down, my guess is that this isn’t the first time the NOAA has been warned about its non-compliance.
Click to expand...
Sweet. Good to know. How do we get them to fix the page and get it back up?
 
AKiss20 said:
None of you cared about the section 508 non-compliance prior to this occurring did you? Seems like a stick approach is being taken.
Click to expand...
Also, in this thread we have people saying “don’t get upset that a valuable resource disappeared, but do get upset at the reason a valuable resource disappeared,” which is a disingenuous approach. How about both?

And if as you say, this is a stick approach to get us to care, isn’t then the point to have the end-user make noise?

Or do you simply want it to disappear because reasons? Is there no value? It’s not like we’re the ones who created it or left it in a situation that got it shut down.
 
Flying Keys said:
Also, in this thread we have people saying “don’t get upset that a valuable resource disappeared, but do get upset at the reason a valuable resource disappeared,” which is a disingenuous approach. How about both?

And if as you say, this is a stick approach to get us to care, isn’t then the point to have the end-user make noise?

Or do you simply want it to disappear because reasons? Is there no value? It’s not like we’re the ones who created it or left it in a situation that got it shut down.
Click to expand...
you are free to be upset but people here are getting upset at the notion of 508 compliance, not because the NOAA has not provided (or were not afforded) the resources for compliance with basic accessibility requirements. I see a lot of “this is DEI gone mad” sentiment here.

That’s like getting mad at the government for shutting down a business that fails to follow fire code (likely after several warnings) and declaring fire codes to be ridiculous.
 
Don't blame the agency, blame the situation on the fact that there are people out there that have a business of suing over perceived discrimination by not having proper alt text on things.
 
flyingron said:
Don't blame the agency, blame the situation on the fact that there are people out there that have a business of suing over perceived discrimination by not having proper alt text on things.
Click to expand...
So you feel the same way about the ADA? Is not having a ramp for wheelchairs “perceived” discrimination or actual discrimination? If the latter, why is having information inaccessible on the internet, something that is essential for many livelihoods in the modern day, perceived discrimination and not actual?
 
AKiss20 said:
you are free to be upset but people here are getting upset at the notion of 508 compliance, not because the NOAA has not provided (or were not afforded) the resources for compliance with basic accessibility requirements. I see a lot of “this is DEI gone mad” sentiment here.
Click to expand...
First, you’ll see no such sentiment in any of my posts.

AKiss20 said:
That’s like getting mad at the government for shutting down a business that fails to follow fire code (likely after several warnings) and declaring fire codes to be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Secondly, a better analogy would be the government removing a fire door from their own building because it didn’t meet code, and replacing it with a piece of paper as to why. Instead of, you know, fixing their own door and/or providing an alternative safety tool.

I want the page to be restored with 508 compliance. That’s all. If it takes angry letters to our elected representatives to expedite that, so be it. I’m at a loss as to how else this can be quickly restored and my ultimate fear is neither it or a viable alternative with the same capabilities will ever be made available. It’ll just die and be forgotten about.
 
AKiss20 said:
you are free to be upset but people here are getting upset at the notion of 508 compliance, not because the NOAA has not provided (or were not afforded) the resources for compliance with basic accessibility requirements. I see a lot of “this is DEI gone mad” sentiment here.

That’s like getting mad at the government for shutting down a business that fails to follow fire code (likely after several warnings) and declaring fire codes to be ridiculous.
Click to expand...
WHAT??? No, you mind readers really are bad at your craft.
 
If the problem was that the agency just wasn't getting around to fixing the page, I'd have preferred to see them leave the page up, with fines imposed until the work was done. Give them an incentive to fix it without depriving pilots and others of the data. But that probably makes too much sense...

I have no idea how one could ever make a complex graphic like a skew-T accessible to the blind, but I recognize that I don't know what I don't know...perhaps solutions or partial solutions to such a problem exist.
 
scottd said:
Paul,

Personally knowing all of the researchers in this specific organization, they are frustrated as well. When the gov't was shutdown years ago because Congress couldn't pass a budget, this site was deemed to be not "operationally necessary" so the server was shut down without any notice. Seems silly, but I can understand why.
Click to expand...
Do you know who we as a pilot group should contact to help move this along? AOPA would be an obvious choice but they move with the speed of molasses.
 
GaryM said:
If the problem was that the agency just wasn't getting around to fixing the page, I'd have preferred to see them leave the page up, with fines imposed until the work was done. Give them an incentive to fix it without depriving pilots and others of the data. But that probably makes too much sense...

I have no idea how one could ever make a complex graphic like a skew-T accessible to the blind, but I recognize that I don't know what I don't know...perhaps solutions or partial solutions to such a problem exist.
Click to expand...
As Scott mentioned above, they are likely using the 508 nonsense as cover for the real reason they are shutting down- that for profit companies are scraping the data and selling the results for operational use instead of research.
 
Tokirbymd said:
As Scott mentioned above, they are likely using the 508 nonsense as cover for the real reason they are shutting down- that for profit companies are scraping the data and selling the results for operational use instead of research.
Click to expand...
That’s even worse.
 
The solution here is to have an exception to the 508 rule for these charts. I just looked up a couple chart readers for the blind. They are pretty rudimentary and barely usable imo, and that’s for a simple multi data graph.

I can’t think of a way to make these charts useful to someone who can’t see.

A more likely solution is assembling this data into some type of table where pertinent data can be accessed and given to the operator aurally so the data picture can be imagined by the user. Then the resultant values would need to given. But even that is not as useful as a Quick Look at the graph.

I suspect some of you who are defending noaa’s decision here have never used these graphs. You know not what you ask, much like the powers the be who shut this data down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top