[nfbcs] Ethics of screen reader friendly development
Gary Wunder
gwunder at earthlink.net
Tue May 21 01:36:46 UTC 2013
Wow, what a thought-provoking post.
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Jude DaShiell
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:14 PM
To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Ethics of screen reader friendly development
Everyone needs to remember accessibility has always had two get out of jail
free cards available to those targeted for compliance. First card is
unreasonable burden which must be and has been proved in the past.
The second get out of jail free card is for a compliance target to be able
to exceed the accessibility standards in question because they have a better
way of providing accessibility than has been done so far available. That
takes care of both ends of that bell curve, and what's left over to argue
about is the stuff in the middle. The argument I hear advanced in here
against accessibility could equally be used against security since
substantial amounts of time effort and money have to be spent for that and
prevent work on the next killer features. The problem at least for the
screen reader community is even if every baby who would be born blind or
become blind at some time in their lives could be detected and aborted in
time the blind population would still not diminish. Countries will do war
regularly and one of the by-products are blinded veterans who need jobs when
returning home.
Aside from wars, industrial accidents will happen and people have accidents
with shotguns on turkey hunts. Young kids will take the powder out of caps
with a needle and let it fall into a jar on a table outside until the sun
throws a spark into the jar igniting the powder and causing loss of
eyesight. All of them are going to need jobs. Now, it will be possible if
accessible development gets shut off to steer blind people completely away
from the computer field along with all other disabled people requiring
accessibility in order to save the money that would be spent on
accessibility for killer features. Aside from the problem what kind of jobs
will this class of people have, there is no guarrantee that corporations
will even consider developing those killer features and more likely plough
that money back into higher stock dividends for their investors. With the
mergers and acquisitions climate as it is now, the big fish eat well and the
people lower down on the pay scales have their jobs at the most jeopardy
when m&a activity happens. Everything here is connected and moving one
piece sets off chain reactions that spread decisions taken throughout the
economy.
Maybe what is best done for future for each side of this argument to ask
themselves "if what we are in favor of happens, then what?", and come up
with likely consequences lists along with justifications for each
consequence on those lists. This is not so much to make points directly but
to figure these likely connections out for the future because sooner or
later we are likely to have a change in policy and direction and those
correctly out in front of the policy may end up having contributed to
shaping future direction taken. All of this will involve gaming theory and
lots of probability calculations if done correctly.
On Mon, 20 May 2013, Jim Barbour wrote:
> Hey John,
>
> You say that I'm making out screen reader usability out to be harder
> than facilities based (wheelchair) accessibility. You say that in
> both cases all that is require is effort.
>
> I believe the skill level and attention to detail required of the
> applications architect building accessible screen applications is
> significantly greater than that of the facilities architect who is
> designing accessible buildings.
>
> Your pointing out Amazon as an example is interesting, since that work
> is now done. I'll point out that the effort amazon put into making
> the kindle voice over aware was effort that could have gone into
> adding other features that would have benefitted a larger audience.
> Mike's original question of ethics comes starkly into view here. Do
> we have the right to demand that Amazon build voiceover awareness into
> the kindle app, for free no less, costing others whatever features
> could have been done instead.
>
> In this case, I say that this was very ethical because the kindle is
> being sold to public institutions which means those institutions
> buying the kindle were in violation of section 508.
>
> Jim
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:46:11PM -0500, John G. Heim wrote:
> > First of all, you are disputing a point I never made. I never said that
accessibility is easy. To some degree, it's immaterial to my point because
it's a matter of doing as much as we can within reason. After all, it wasn't
easy to make our physical infrastructure wheelchair accessible.
> >
> > But besides that, accessibility is not as hard as you make it out to
be. It's really not that different from wheelchair accessibility in that
absolute perfection is difficult if not impossible. But the problem itself
can essentially be eliminated with some effort. If our society put the same
amount of attention and effort into electronic accessibility for screen
readers as it put into physical accessibility for wheelchairs, the problem
could be essentially solved.
> >
> > Probably the best example of this was the NFB's lawsuit against the
universities that were going to give all their students the Kindle book
reader even though it wasn't accessible. Asking Amazon to put a workable
screen reader on it's device was not asking for the moon. Apple's IOS
devices all come with a screen reader and there are several screen readers
developed completely by volunteers in their spare time. If they can do it,
Amazon, with it's vast resources could have done the same. If you compare
what we were asking from Amazon to the huge amount of resources put into
making our physical infrastructure wheelchair accessible, there's no
contest. We weren't asking for anything tougher for Amazon than we had asked
of the thousands upon thousands of businesses that had built or remodeled a
brick and mortar structure over the past couple of decades since the ADA was
passed.
> >
> > PS: I don't understand how the distinction I'm making between legal and
ethical issues can cause so much confusion. The point I'm making isn't about
the specifics of accessibility laws but about whether such laws should exist
at all. Some people seem to think it's wrong to legislate accessibility.
That's an ethical issue, not a legal one.
> >
> > The NFB's Kindle lawsuit is again a good example. It should be fairly
obvious to anyone that you could criticize the NFB's actions on either legal
or on ethical grounds. Regardless of the legal merits of the case, was it
ethical and/or fair for the NFB to keep all those students from getting
Kindles just because they were inaccessible to a few? My answer, of course,
is absolutely yes. My opinion is that it would have been unethical for the
NFB to not file suit. I'd say it was unethical for the universities to be
willing to leave blind students out like that.
> >
> > Actually, the only reasonable way to criticize my argument is to say
that the huge amount of resources we put into making our country wheelchair
accessible wasn't worth it. The benefit from doing that wasn't worth the
cost.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2008, at 10:13 AM, pblackmer27 at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > -original message-
> > > Subject: [nfbcs] Ethics of screen reader friendly development
> > > From: Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com>
> > > Date: 05/13/2013 10:15 AM
> > >
> > > John, I'm afraid you've managed to muddle this conversation
> > > considerably by blurring the lines between ethical and legal.
> > >
> > > Of course our society prefers that people be nice to each other
> > > and help out when possible. However, our legal system doesn't
> > > require it because there are times when help is unwanted, or too much
of a
> > > burden for the helper.
> > >
> > > As for the ethics of accessibility, it really is hard to pin down.
> > > One reason it's so hard is that accessibility for blind folks
> > > doesn't have good requirements. We talk a lot about something
> > > being usable by the blind, but what a blind person can use will
> > > depend largely on the blind person.
> > >
> > > There are guidelines, WCAG and others, but nothing a software
> > > engineer can mark off pn a checklist. In order to get real
> > > accessibility, a software developer must be aware of all the
> > > technology that blind people use, code for those technologies,
> > > stage a user group of blind folks for testing, and then document
> > > and support the accessible version of the software.
> > >
> > > Imagine if we had the same lack of requirements for other types of
> > > accessibility such as closed captioning or wheelchair ramps. My
> > > guess is we'd have much less of those types of accessibility as well.
> > >
> > > Finally, to Mike's point, whether we like to admit it or not we
> > > are holding back new innovations in order to make or keep products
> > > accessible for us. My favorite example of this today is IOS and
> > > voiceover. Newer IOS apps have started using new gestures to
> > > access functions. However, since voiceover isn't aware of these
> > > new gestures, how could it be, these apps are not voiceover
> > > friendly. We can either try and stop app developers from
> > > innovatively trying new gestures, or we can push the voiceover
developers to keep up with new gestures.
> > > Keeping up though is a loosing proposition because at some point
> > > two apps will use the same new gesture for totally different purposes.
> > >
> > > So, is it more ethical to hold back innovation or to leave out the
> > > disabled? My guess is that there's a middle ground to be figured
> > > out, but that means we also have to recognize that it's a game of
> > > negotiation we're playing, not a game of "we should have what
> > > everyone else has."
> > >
> > > Take Care,
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:29:08AM -0500, John G. Heim wrote:
> > >> Mike, you're trying to take both sides of a logical point here.
> > >> Is this an ethical question or a strictly utilitarian point
> > >> you're making? In other words, are you asking what's ethical or
> > >> what works? Either way, it isn't as simple as you seem to think.
> > >>
> > >> No reasonable person would say it's unethical for a society to
> > >> demand that it's members go out of their way to help others. Some
> > >> people seem to think that it's wrong to force people to be nice.
> > >> But a society just can't operate otherwise. You can't really have
> > >> a society where it's every man for himself and if you can't cut
> > >> it, well, too bad, you'll just have to die. You don't get a
> > >> stronger society that way, you get chaos. And it's neither ethical or
practical.
> > >>
> > >> So the question really should be will accessibility work? Will
> > >> this be a stronger, better society if accessibility laws are
> > >> passed and enforced? My opinion is that it's an easy yes.
> > >>
> > >> It's fairly obvious that curb cuts and accessible bathrooms have
> > >> been an unqualified success. Besides bringing people in
> > >> wheellchairs into the mainstream, it has completely changed the
> > >> way people in wheelchairs are viewed by society. It's no longer a
strange thing to see a person in a
> > >> wheelchair on a bus or in an elevator. That access has completely
> > >> changed the way our society sees people in wheelchairs. If you
> > >> are in a wheelchair, you're still expected to get out there and
> > >> get a job, just like everyone else. It would be absurd these days
> > >> for someone who has all their faculties except use of their legs to
say they can't possibly get a job.
> > >> Everyone would assume their problem is more in their head than in
> > >> their legs.
> > >>
> > >> Those of us on this list may or may not consider it reasonable
> > >> for a blind person to say they can't get a job because they are
> > >> blind. But if you think the rest of the population sees it that way
you are very much mistaken.
> > >> Heck, many people think it's reasonable to kill yourself if you're
blind.
> > >> nd. It's no longer blind people who need to be told that
> > >> blindness can be a mere nuisance, it's the general public. We
> > >> need a cultural shift like the one we've seen occur with people in
wheelchairs over the past few decades.
> > >> The way to make that shift happen is for accessibility for the
> > >> blind to become as much a part of our way of life as it is for people
in wheelchairs.
> > >> Sure, there will be a lot of grumbling but in the long run, we'll
> > >> all be better off for it.
> > >>
> > >> If you ask me if it's ethical for us to ask for laws that require
> > >> accessibility, my answer is that it's unethical for us not to.
> > >>
> > >> On 05/12/13 17:22, Mike Freeman wrote:
> > >>> Actually, there's an unspoken aspect to all this that most of us
> > >>> do not even dare to admit to ourselves: that is, while we want
> > >>> "equal access" -- whatever that is -- and believe that "the law"
> > >>> should be enough to guarantee it, what gives us, a small
> > >>> minority, the right to dictate to the majority (most workers)
> > >>> what software they can use? It puts us in an awkward position
> > >>> when great emphasis is placed these days upon "team play" etc.
> > >>> to say that most of the team can't use certain software because
> > >>> we can't access it. Of course this begs the larger question as
> > >>> to whether such inaccessible software should exist or not. But
> > >>> trying to mandate accessibility in an absolute sense amounts to
> > >>> fixing what software development techniques and tools can and
> > >>> cannot be used -- an effort that is, in the long run, doomed to
> > >>> fail; one cannot stop innovation and by its very definition,
screen-reader manufacturers cannot adjust to innovations they don't know
about or that haven't been developed yet.
> > >>>
> > >>> This doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight for access as the
> > >>> present lawsuit does; we have no choice if we don't want to be
> > >>> returned to the rocking-chair. But until someone develops Mr.
> > >>> Data of STNG, we are going to be faced with that unspoken
> > >>> dilemma of which I write and it's not an easy thing to figure out
how to get around it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Mike Freeman
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tami
> > >>> Jarvis
> > >>> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:13 AM
> > >>> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
> > >>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] project tracking software
> > >>>
> > >>> Tracy,
> > >>>
> > >>> Yeah, and I keep hearing these sorts of stories, where the laws
> > >>> are just flat out not followed.
> > >>>
> > >>> So I'm really interested in how the lawsuit Mike F. mentioned in
> > >>> an earlier post will come out after the long slog... It's
> > >>> depressing in a way, though I guess not all that surprising,
> > >>> that it's going to take at least as much hard work and effort to
> > >>> get teeth put in those laws as it was to get the laws in the
> > >>> first place... Sigh. Then again, I remember when those laws were
> > >>> being developed and then finally passed back in the day. Since I
knew I would be blind sooner or later, I paid attention.
> > >>> But, of course, I was not officially a disabled person then, so
> > >>> I got to hear the abled folks talk about the horrible imposition
> > >>> in the free way bigots talk when they assume you are one of
> > >>> Them... From what I recall of what of that was on my limited
> > >>> radar at the time, the reason the laws ended up toothless was
> > >>> that that was the only way they could be passed in the first
> > >>> place. Of course, I know a lot of you here had real skin in that
game, so thanks! I've benefitted from your hard work.
> > >>>
> > >>> But more remains now, for sure, to get penalties for violators.
> > >>> It's just unfortunate that it takes people who would rather be
> > >>> working for a living to have to take time out of their lives for
lawsuits instead.
> > >>>
> > >>> Tami
> > >>>
> > >>> On 05/11/2013 05:48 AM, Tracy Carcione wrote:
> > >>>> I know this is a ridiculous thing to say, but there is a law
> > >>>> requiring the government to only purchase accessible software,
> > >>>> right? Yet they're using JIRA, which Susie says is
> > >>>> inaccessible. Thus, they're breaking the law. I just thought it
had to be said.
> > >>>> Tracy
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stanzel, Susan - FSA,
> > >>>> Kansas City, MO" <Susan.Stanzel at kcc.usda.gov>
> > >>>> To: "NFB in Computer Science Mailing List" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
> > >>>> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 5:57 PM
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] project tracking software
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> The project lead sometimes has to use HP Quallity Center
> > >>>>> because the Testing and Certification Office is part of our
> > >>>>> team. We submit our software to them for their review before
> > >>>>> it goes to production. It would be handy if I could use it, but
more handy if I could use JIRA.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Susie
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> > >>>>> Steve Jacobson
> > >>>>> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 2:24 PM
> > >>>>> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] project tracking software
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Susie,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That is interesting that the government is using HP Quality
> > >>>>> Center. I had trouble using it but it turned out I didn't
> > >>>>> have to so I did not pursue it. However, I thought it was
> > >>>>> more for developing and executing test cases, although maybe that
is just one use.
> > >>>>> Whether it helps or not, if I have to use it, knowing it is
> > >>>>> used by the government could give me more of a lever to get
> > >>>>> them to fix those things that don't appear to be accessible.
> > >>>>> Unfortunately, I think some of the problem I have seen with
> > >>>>> HPQC may have to do with screen readers not keeping up as well as
they might with modern web approaches.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Steve Jacobson
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 13:59:16 +0000, Stanzel, Susan - FSA,
> > >>>>> Kansas City, MO wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Good moring Everyone,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> There are two different project and bug tracking programs used at
USDA.
> > >>>>>> They are JIRA which appears not to be accessible and HP
> > >>>>> Quallity Center which I am not forced to use. Do any of you
> > >>>>> successfully use project tracking software? I wish all I had
> > >>>>> to do in my job was code (grin).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Susie Stanzel
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> This electronic message contains information generated by the
> > >>>>>> USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized
> > >>>>> interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the
> > >>>>> information it contains may violate the law and subject the
> > >>>>> violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you
> > >>>>> have received this message in error, please notify the sender
> > >>>>> and delete the email immediately.
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
> > >>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
> > >>>>>> info for
> > >>>>>> nfbcs:
> > >>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/steve.jaco
> > >>>>>> bson%40vis
> > >>>>>> i.com
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> nfbcs mailing list
> > >>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
> > >>>>> info for
> > >>>>> nfbcs:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/susan.stanzel%40kcc.usda.
> > >>> gov
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> nfbcs mailing list
> > >>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
> > >>>>> info for
> > >>>>> nfbcs:
> > >>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/carcione%40
> > >>>>> access.net
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> nfbcs mailing list
> > >>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
> > >>>> info for
> > >>>> nfbcs:
> > >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/tami%40poodl
> > >>>> emutt.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> nfbcs mailing list
> > >>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
for nfbcs:
> > >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix
> > >>> .com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> nfbcs mailing list
> > >>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
for nfbcs:
> > >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.
> > >>> wisc.edu
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> ---
> > >> John G. Heim, 608-263-4189, jheim at math.wisc.edu
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> nfbcs mailing list
> > >> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbcs:
> > >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore
> > >> .com
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > nfbcs mailing list
> > > nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbcs:
> > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/pblackmer27%40g
> > > mail.com
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > nfbcs mailing list
> > > nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbcs:
> > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.wi
> > > sc.edu
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfbcs mailing list
> > nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbcs:
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore.co
> > m
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbcs mailing list
> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbcs:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jdashiel%40shellwor
> ld.net
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
jude <jdashiel at shellworld.net>
About to block another web browser version? Ask yourself what Tim
Berners-lee would do.
_______________________________________________
nfbcs mailing list
nfbcs at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/gwunder%40earthlink.net
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list