[nfbcs] NFB & narrator

Sun Aug 11 19:43:59 UTC 2013

As one who thought Microsoft shouldn't get into the full screen reader business, I have a couple of thoughts on this.  First, I do not remember any discussion of a lawsuit.  I also don't remember the NFB taking 
an official position on this, either.  A number of us representing the NFB did express concerns with Microsoft developing and including a full screen reader with Windows.  At least from my point of view, my 
concern with them doing that was not whether other screen reader producers stayed in business.  My concern was twofold.  I questioned whether Microsoft would understand or respond to our needs to the 
degree that other screen reader producers were trying to do at the time, and I also wondered about Microsoft's ability to put time into making their screen reader work well with products that were in competition 
with other Microsoft products.  I don't mean that they would be dishonest about it, but there are always limits to available resources and priorities that have to be set.  While I have not seen anything to this point 
to cause me to feel this was the wrong position to take, I do not remember that the sentiment was strong enough to have threatened a lawsuit.  

I am glad that Narrator is available to handle some tasks in Windows and I've depended upon it regularly.  However, I find that even with its limited functionality that it is still a good bit more sluggish than 
Window-Eyes or JFW and even more than NVDA in some cases.  Having something that works sluggishly is certainly better than having nothing at all, but responsiveness is an important part of screen reader 
functionality, particularly in employment situations.  Perhaps if Microsoft had developed a full screen reader, they would have given more attention to this, but I do not find responsiveness to be a characteristic 
of most Microsoft products that I use.  They are also a company that is geared to dealing with broad markets, and I did feel some concern about their ability to deal with a small market such as ours.

John mentioned that NVDA proves that a free screen reader would not drive others out of the business.  I would disagree with that assessment.  As good as NVDA is, it isn't as fully functional as either Window-
Eyes or JFW.  To my knowledge, NVDA does not use an off-screen model and therefore does not work with some software that the others work with.  In my particular case, there are a couple of pieces of 
software that I use every day on the job and some on-line courses that I can manage with Window-Eyes and I know also work with JFW that does not work with NVDA.  It is my recollection that Microsoft was 
considering a complete screen reader, and not one such as NVDA that relies on newer technologies.  The need for an off-screen model has decreased over time and its role will continue to diminish.  I don't 
really know what this might do to the picture in the long run, but this does change the role of screen readers to some degree.  We could see things evolve such that software developers will have to play by the 
rules more and screen readers won't have to be quite so complex to work well.  It could also happen, though, that there will be a greater division between accessible software and software that is not 
accessible with less of a possibility to find workarounds.  I am somewhat worried about what will happen to the accessibility of software, especially in employment settings in the private sector.  

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:00:40 -0400 (EDT), Jude DaShiell wrote:

>I'm a direct part of all of this so I'd better explain a couple things.  
>I met with the head of Microsoft's accessibility department I think in 
>2004 it was so long ago and described my situation with windows 98 
>needing to be reinstalled every couple weeks and how I had to manage 
>that on a dell with windows only recognizing the sound card after a 
>driver from the dell resource disk had been loaded and me mostly working 
>alone.  It was a matter of using a list of brailled instructions and 
>after each one had been keyed in waiting for the dvd drive to stop 
>spinning.  It worked, but it drove me to Linux just to preserve my 
>sanity later.  David Goldfield told me that Microsoft had developed a 
>screen reader and would install it in windows 98se the next version 
>called narrator.  He told me there had been pressure from 
>freedomscientific not to take development any further on this screen 
>reader.  At that time, David Goldfield knew nothing about Gwmicro 
>Corporation or anything it produced, so I clued him in on window-eyes.  
>After that, Microsoft started working with Gwmicro corporation.  The 
>meeting we had was in Seattle.

>On Sat, 10 Aug 2013, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:

>> ...bookmarks, anyone?
>> On 8/10/2013 4:20 PM, John G. Heim wrote:
>> > Hmmm.... Pressure? Mike's message wasn't clear on one point -- was Microsoft
>> > going to develop a screen reader and they stopped at least in part because
>> > the NFB asked them to? My recollection of events is that that is what
>> > happened. I think the rumors of the lawsuit were about Freedom Scientific.
>> > At the time, Freedom Scientific displayed a marked tendency to sue other
>> > accessibility companies. I don't know if FS actually threatened a lawsuit
>> > but I am sure that's where the rumors came from. In fact, had Microsoft
>> > proceeded to develop a screen reader, I would have been greatly surprised if
>> > FS had not sued. These days we're all familiar with the term "patent troll".
>> > I'm not sure it's fair to describe FS as a patent troll but I have often
>> > felt  they claimed patents on things that should not be patentable.
>> >
>> > So who knows what would have happened without the NFB's actions. I don't
>> > have an alternate universe machine that I can use to find out.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 08/10/2013 02:39 PM, Buddy Brannan wrote:
>> > > What you describe, John, and what others have outlined, and what I myself
>> > > recall, are a far cry from any sort of lawsuit or pressure brought to
>> > > bear. The thing with which I took issue, and wanted some documentation for
>> > > (none has been provided) was the contention that there was a lawsuit. It
>> > > seems fairly clear that there was not. I was around and active and
>> > > following this stuff back then, too, although in no wy as closely as, say,
>> > > others who were there and commented on this already. Whether the
>> > > recommendation that Microsoft not develop a screen reader was right at the
>> > > time, or whether, as it seems, history bears out the opposite view, isn?t
>> > > especially issue with me. I?m happy to see that we?re making progress
>> > > towards universal access and built-in useful things in mainstream
>> > > products. I?d like to see this trend continue. I?m just looking for some
>> > > historical accuracy here, and I think we now have that. Shouting that the
>> > > NFB threatened a lawsuit doesn?t make it so, no matter ho
>> > w many p
>> > e
>> > ople say they heard that it happened.
>> > > -- 
>> > > Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
>> > > Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Aug 10, 2013, at 3:31 PM, John G. Heim <jheim at math.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > This list is older than the events you're talking about. Some of us,
>> > > > myself included, were on this list at the time.  You can trust our
>> > > > recollections or not, that is up to you. Would you feel better if I
>> > > > created a web page with my recollections that I could give you a link
>> > > > to? I don't know what other kind of documentation you expect.
>> > > >
>> > > > The NFB was part of a group, committee, whatever, that was making
>> > > > accessibility recommendations to Microsoft. There were people on this
>> > > > listat the time  in that group. The issue itself was a matter of some
>> > > > debate but it was after the fact. I  want to be as fair to the NFB as
>> > > > possible here. I thik it is fair to say that the NFB asked Microsoft to
>> > > > stop improving narrator because they were afraid it would drive Freedom
>> > > > Scientific and other screen reader manufacturers out of business. But I
>> > > > am about as sure as I can be that there was no lawsuit.  The NFB  said
>> > > > that they'd prefer  Microsoft stopped improving narrator and Microsoft
>> > > > said okay.
>> > > >
>> > > > At the time, I argued that the NFB's logic was flawed. Who knows?
>> > > > Although, I think the advent of free, open source screen readers like
>> > > > nvda and orca bolster my point of view a great deal. If nvda didn't
>> > > > drive FS out of business, narrator wouldn't have. Not unless it really
>> > > > was as good as jaws, in which case we'd all win. None of us foresaw
>> > > > voiceover. Apple and Microsoft could be in a screen reader competition
>> > > > right now. That would have been nice. As it is, it's Apple and Freedom
>> > > > Scientific. That's not nearly as much fun.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > I?ve seen a ton of people reference some supposed lawsuit, or
>> > > > > pressure, that the NFB brought to bear on Microsoft to discourage them
>> > > > > from including a screen reader in Windows, but no one?s been able to
>> > > > > actually dig up any information or documentation on said lawsuit. Was
>> > > > > there really such an animal? I do recall that Microsoft purchased, or
>> > > > > licensed, or thus somehow acquired the off-screen model from Freedom
>> > > > > Scientific in the late ?90?s, 1996 or 1997 as I recall, and I also
>> > > > > recall nothing ever came of it, but I?ve never seen anything to
>> > > > > indicate that this wasn?t anything more than a business decision to
>> > > > > shelve it.
>> > > > > -- 
>> > > > > Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
>> > > > > Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Aug 9, 2013, at 10:54 PM, Gabe Vega Via Iphone4S
>> > > > > <theblindtech at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Microsoft tried this am a late 90s, does anyone remember? Why is of
>> > > > > > the PNFP happens to always forget this fact. But it was the NFB
>> > > > > > (suit, if Microsoft made a screen reader, a full functioning
>> > > > > > screenwriter into windows. Triberg to protect freedom scientific and
>> > > > > > other screenwriter makers. But now that the design the Apple Leeds
>> > > > > > is all integral, now nfb wants to switch sides
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Gabe Vega
>> > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
>> > > > > > CEO
>> > > > > > Commtech LLC
>> > > > > > The leader of computer support, training and web development
>> > > > > > services
>> > > > > > Web: http://commtechusa.net
>> > > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/commtechllc
>> > > > > > Facebook: http://facebook.com/commtechllc
>> > > > > > Email: info at commtechusa.net
>> > > > > > Phone: (888) 351-5289 Ext. 710
>> > > > > > Fax: (480) 535-7649
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Aug 9, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Kevin Fjelsted <kfjelsted at gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Screen readers take very little resource if designed correctly.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > In fact if the display was eliminated and only audio was provided
>> > > > > > > the cost could be lowered for the hardware including the
>> > > > > > > processor.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Design is key.
>> > > > > > > We have gotten used to the huge resources required by JAWS as an
>> > > > > > > example because of the outboard nonintegrated approach for that
>> > > > > > > screen reader, i.e., it isn't integral  to windows.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > If Microsoft had prioritized designing screen reading into windows
>> > > > > > > from the ground up
>> > > > > > > we would have over 90% of apps accessible and resources would be
>> > > > > > > much better managed.
>> > > > > > > Regarding the eReader, more processing power is used trying to
>> > > > > > > keep the visual experience smooth,, scrolling the pages,
>> > > > > > > compensating for the change in font size either through the user
>> > > > > > > expanding the font, or by varied styles in the book.
>> > > > > 