[gui-talk] inaccessible software continued

Tue Feb 16 19:40:27 UTC 2010

Allen and James,

There are things in this discussion that also hit me wrong, but I also know that we must be careful not to write off the possibility of further progress in terms of our 
access to documents and processes.  With so many processes changing, including the entire infrastructure of information provision, this is the time for us to work to 
be included in the planning and development of new processes.

Having said that, it is possible that James is not aware of the fact that it was felt not all that many years ago that blind people could not be legally and financially 
responsible for ourselves.  It was thought that since we couldn't read, we could not be responsible.  There were blind persons whose parents retained control of their 
finances even after they had reached adulthood.  What evolved was the concept that we were responsible to get the information we need to make decisions about 
ourselves.  In the process of making claims that we don't have the content intended by an author, we must be careful not to unintentionally develop the idea that if 
something is not accessible we cannot be responsible for our role in the process it represents.  While working toward equal access, we have to protect the idea that 
we are responsible to what the strengths and weaknesses are of whatever system we use to access information.  We have to be the ones to determine when it 
might make sense to pay a reader or to ask that one be provided.  If someone intentionally creates a form that misrepresents the data to those of us who are blind, 
we should be able to call that out and take legal action, but we need to be aware of the limitations of our assistive technology to know when we should be asking 
more questions.  

The voter registration examples are interesting.  If the forms are not accessible and if personnel are unwilling to help a blind person register, there might be a case.  
However, I don't know that I see this issue as black and white as that the only way to make voter registration accessible is through the use of a computerized form.  
If JFW is a poll tax, then isn't the computer itself a poll tax?  I agree, by the way, that accessibility should not be based on tailoring a form for one screen reader, the 
solution should be more generic than that.  Yet, it isn't overly difficult to make one or several forms accessible.  The trick is to figure out how to automatically make 
thousands of forms accessible and to be able to do it in a timely and cost-effective manner.  James, you have said elsewhere that you have an approach that can 
make all documents accessible.  I assume that is what you are talking about here when you talk about the voter registration system.  You have said other places 
that you cannot reveal too many details because of patent considerations.  Some of what you write here seems very much as though you are trying to develop a 
demand for your process.  This isn't unreasonable, but since your process is unknown to us, it is difficult for us to know how effective it really is, how expensive it is, 
how time-consuming it is or even how effective it is.  However, it has been my experience that when promises sound too good to be true, they usually are.  That isn't 
always because those making the promises don't mean to keep them, but factors are often more complicated than is sometimes known.  

As we move into the future, we are going to need to find ways to apply pressure to raise the visibility of accessibility.  This means we need to get those creating 
documents to take us into account, but it also means that we need to push our assistive technology to handle new types of data.  There is likely always going to be 
a gap because things are changing that will mean that some data will not be all that accessible.  Therefore, we can't forget, as blind people, how to use multiple 
alternatives to get the information that we need to be responsible for ourselves.  Therefore, as I see it, we have a balancing act to execute.  We need to keep up 
the pressure for more access, but we do not want to paint the picture that without access we are completely helpless.  We have to be mindful of all of the 
consequences of how we portray the importance of accessibility.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:45:27 -0500, Hoffman, Allen wrote:

>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
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for gui-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com