[gui-talk] inaccessible software continued

Tue Feb 16 14:45:27 UTC 2010

For anyone coming in late to this thread this is the 3rd in this thread
between James Pepper and Allen Hoffman.
The following will be my last post on this thread to keep this from
getting in to anything unintended on either side.  My reading of James's
pervious emails caused me to respond to improve context around the
topics he raises, and to ask some questions about his statements.  James
in my view writes in a confrontational style, and jumps and mixes from
topic to topic, which for me at least, makes reading the material for
concepts more mentally taxing than it might be if more organized.  That
all said, I applaud James for the intentions, equal access is something
to achieve, however, just demanding something doesn't make it real.
More than one strategy is needed to achieve success, and unequal access
is not a conspiracy.  I don't really know how to specifically respond to
the items below without extracting my original post with responses,
inserting these where they may be appropriate, and then merging the
whole for readability.  I just don't have time for that, so will just
leave them in here for others to parse out.

I think one critical thing to get form this thread is that software
access is not the same as content access, and mean different things in
the world of regulation and practice.  Content accessibility requires
sufficient linkage of information, and alternates when needed, while
software accessibility requires attention to interface elements
properties, such as identity, operation, and state, as well as other
specific things including color contrast, ability to utilize platform
accessibility settings, etc.  

For context: James writes:

The principle is that Content that is made by one person is not the same
content the blind receive and that creates a disconnect between the
intent of the author and the reception by the blind.  And if we demand
that connection where all of the content is accessible to the blind,
then people will step up and make it happen.  It is possible to do this
now!

Take for example the voter registration form where you get different
content depending on which program you use to access the content.  The
experience of the blind is not the same as that the sighted person,
content is missing.
If you are going to have a contract between two parties, they have to be
on the same page.  That's the principle here, that the blind are not
getting the same documents, the same content as everyone else!

If we rely on weak definitions of software accessibility, where not all
of
the content is accessible, then what's the point of accessibility laws?
Do
you think it is OK for people to only hear the words "You have the
right"
when a person is being read their miranda rights, is that good enough
for you?  Lawyers will tear you to shreds!  So when lawyers find out
that the blind are not receiving all of the information, it will create
an entire industry in challenging every government action relating to
the blind, the visually impaired and the disabled.

That's right lawyers, go for it!  We need a change!

The blind require a copy of every form to be accessible to them before
and after it is filled out, so they can call up that record.  So they
have to print up that form to have their record.  If they want to access
that form, they have to run OCR software on it.  If the font is too
small, the OCR software won't work.

The only reason we do not have content in Spanish is because people
choose to not do it!

Misleading alternate content is possible right now, if you want to bury
your head in the sand and pretend it is not there then that is your
problem.
Anyone can write anything in the alternative text including "button 1"
and the only way to check to make sure the content is the same is to
actually turn on a screen reader and  check it to the visual document.
Since most people do not do that, the potential for fraud is there;
intentional or not, it is still a risk.  If insurance companies
recognize this risk then businesses will demand that their I.T
professionals prove their work.

In DAISY format, content goes missing.  It happens all the time and the
only way to realize this is happening is to compare the original
document with the DAISY version.

Are the blind emancipated? It is assumed the blind will get assistance
to help them read and fill out content.  Documents are designed with the
defeated attitude that people will get others to help them. In the case
of Voter Registration we saw the effect of literacy tests on the right
to vote, when african americans were required to read to register to
vote.  It is the blind's right to register to vote, not a gift of the
state.

Accessility is not a gift from I.T. personnel at government agencies, it
is a right.  Accessibility is depending right now on the good graces of
the people who choose to act and care about their work. But we need for
everyone to "get it" not just the good people.

In 2008 I made the National Voter Registration form to be accessible to
the blind using conventional techniques and this form was tested by AFB
Tech, the technology division of the American Foundation for the Blind,
and by the Jernigan Insititute of the National Federation of the Blind
and Jim Dickson, the Vice President of the American Association of
People with Disabilities personally presented that form to the Elections
Assistance Commission (EAC).

I had originally presented the form to the EAC in August of 2008 and
that is when I contacted the Voting Rights Division of the ACLU.  The
National Voter Registration form at that time consisted of some text
instructions and that was all, the form was a mess, unreadable and
inaccessible, it was an image.
Of course the Elections Assistance Commission was created by Congress to
make voting accessible to the blind in the Help America Vote Act of 2002
but for some strange reason they never got around to the Voter
Registration form. And everyone who went through the civil rights
movement understands that if you are not registered to vote, you cannot
vote, even if the voting machines are accessible. Of course if the blind
and disabled actually showed up for a national election it would
probably overwhelm the polling stations and be a logistical nightmare
for elections officials.

The EAC is made up of all the elections officials of every state and
they were required to make voter regsitration accessible to the blind in
6 different federal laws passed since 1973, so there is no excuse!  One
state elections officer actually wrote in writing that they were not
required to make the voter registration form accessible to the blind. I
handed that over to the Voting Rights Division of the ACLU.

That form requires equal access to all people to be able to register to
vote and any impediment to that access is a violation of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965. The blind and disabled were added to that law in the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  If you put a literacy test on that form,
then that is a deterent to a person to vote.

In 2008 that was particularly important as many states purged their
voter registrations and people had to register again.  You might have
noticed this when I think it was New Mexico or Arizona that purged its
voting records and older americans were denied the right to vote because
they no longer had their birth certificates and state records did not go
back far enough to prove these people as citizens.  So everyone had to
register to vote again.

You don't see a lot of blind people registering to vote at the DMV!

19 days after I submitted the forms, the EAC came out with their new
form, which is different depending on which screen reader you use to
read the form and not all of the content is accessible and it violated
Section 508 law.  Most states stopped voter registration 2 weeks after
that form was delivered.  The entire form is designed for people using
JAWS and the blind still needed to get someone to help them fill it out.
Having to buy JAWS is a poll tax in voter registration.  You could not
fill out the form with the demo of JAWS, you did not have enough time.
Getting someone to help you can be a poll tax depending on who it is
that helped you.

My forms were designed so that the blind could fill it out all by
themselves without assistance using free screen readers so there was no
poll tax on the blind.

So the Elections Assistance Commission made the form that required the
blind to buy software to register to vote. That is a poll tax.  And if
you have to ask people to read something for you that is a literacy
test.  And if you cannot access the form it is also a literacy test. And
the form requires people to draw a map on the backside of the form and
that is a literacy test!

I wrote about the numbers of people involved because in a civil rights
movement, numbers count to Congress and Congress has to change the
regulations and the laws to enable greater access. You can get all
academic about civil rights but is you want to change policy, you have
to make Congress realize they are dismissing a large voting block and
given the recent elections, every vote counts!

Right now, policy is made based on a census poll made in 2006 where they
determined that there were about 1 million sensory impaired americans in
the US, including the deaf.  It was interesting because the person who
did that study was there at the hearing in Dallas and he told me that
the study was actually intended for a very specific set of disabilities
and the study was not intended to demonstrate the numbers of the actual
disabled in this country.  But those figures are used to set policy and
so the blind and disabled are under-represented in policy decisions.

The NIH is tracking 33.5 million people with the 6 most common eye
disease that result in blindness. Most of the blind are not on
government assistance. They cannot afford JAWS!

So I suggested that we have the census count the number of blind and
disabled in this country so we know who is disabled, where they are
located so we can direct better coverage to them.  Why is that a bad
idea?

The people who applauded me were the people at that hearing.

If you do not recognize the problems of accessibility, how are you going
to fix them?

Response:
Most of the time I don't know everything, and I would find it unlikely
you do either.  I think it would help if you could propose solutions
with more depth, complain less, and find a way to organize your thoughts
before submitting them.  --  Allen Hoffman

James Pepper