[blindLaw] Fwd: Accessibility of Discovery Platforms

[Gerard Sadlier]

Hi Nikki

Thanks so much. I do essentially what you do as regards off line
prints to pdf. It's the best I can currently do but it really is not a
satisfactory solution.

I agree in particular with your comments about being nice to
colleagues and I appreciate your response!
Kind regards

Ger

On 3/9/23, Singh, Nandini via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Hi Ger,
>
> I believe your message did indeed go through. I suspect most folks might not
> have much to say, and I have been working on two projects due at the end of
> the week, which delayed my response to you. I actually have a bunch to say
> on the topic. I will, however, try to keep my comments brief.
>
> Legal services support technology, like e-discovery software, generally has
> plenty to be desired regarding screen reader accessibility. It is very
> unfortunate because there is no fundamental reason why underlying code could
> not be written to work better with screen readers. E-discovery platforms are
> mostly databases (and far from the most sophisticated ones) with an
> interface that folks without computer science degrees, i.e. lawyers, can
> feel comfortable using to run searches, review documents, and prepare
> materials for production.
>
> I have worked--not really--with Relativity, a popular document review
> platform application, in addition to my firm's in-house one. Both are
> intensely frustrating to use with JAWS. Items are not labeled well or
> require a mouse to activate. For browser-based platforms, I have often had
> to contend with cursor focus issues as well, making it challenging to jump
> from different parts of the main screen: main document for review, review
> panel, menu of preferences. As a result, I try to develop a close
> relationship with litigation support, individuals with the computer science
> and technical background who maintain the database for the attorneys. I
> craft searches for them to execute for me. They give me hit counts, and I
> then request a print to PDF for offline review, or else I refine the search,
> sometimes with the specialists's input.
>
> The above is not my favorite solution, but it does work and has allowed me
> to do what I have to do by way of fact development and deposition/interview
> prep. It does get a bit tricky if I am trying to understand different forks
> of an email exchange or track down different drafts of a hot/key document,
> like a final memorandum or slide deck. For that detailed, detective-type
> work, I enlist the assistance of the paralegal or contract attorney assigned
> to the matter. We have a call, so I can explain the precise factual context
> and illuminate the story, as far as I understand from the materials I have
> at the time, to permit the paralegal or contract attorney to take a deeper
> dive limited in time and the custodians/people involved in the documents.
>
> I will underscore that even if you cannot use the review platforms, you
> should learn how they work. You need not know where to click for each
> command. But you should know what your platform is capable of doing so you
> can guide someone else to run searches for you, construct review coding or
> tagging panels for you, retrieve documents for you, or print documents in a
> specific order for you.
>
> You should also let your organization know and the e-discovery vendor know
> about the accessibility issue. Software developers really need to see that
> this is a problem worth the time and attention. Right now, I consider it a
> victory if I can educate sales reps or designers about JAWS. How and when
> feedback turns into better product coding, I am not sure. But in the
> meanwhile, I, like you, still have cases to move forward, so please treat
> the support staff around you with kindness and respect, because they will
> help you bridge much of the gap that non-inclusive technology design
> presents.
>
> And so much for my earlier declared brevity. I write all this out because
> while I appreciate that many here spend time on Westlaw or Lexis, there are
> so many other products that lawyers use. People with an investigations or
> trial practice spend probably years of their lives with e-discovery
> products, and those products present some very cool features overall but
> some non-trivial accessibility issues at the same time.
>
> Regards,
> Nikki
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BlindLaw <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Gerard Sadlier via
> BlindLaw
> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 12:53 AM
> To: blindlaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Cc: Gerard Sadlier <gerard.sadlier at gmail.com>
> Subject: [blindLaw] Fwd: Accessibility of Discovery Platforms
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
> Hi all
>
> I've emailed on this list previously about the accessibility of
> discovery review platforms. The platform we have, Reveal, still seems
> quite inaccessible. Does anyone have experience with it or indeed with
> another platform?
>
> Note, I tried to send this to the list a few days ago but not sure if
> it went through or not. If it did, my apologies for a further posting.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Ger
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/nsingh%40cov.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/gerard.sadlier%40gmail.com
>