[nfbcs] Ethics of screen reader friendly development
Kevin Fjelsted
kfjelsted at gmail.com
Tue May 21 17:33:45 UTC 2013
This may provide another context from which to look at accessibility.
I use a product called RingCentral which is a business phone system in the cloud.
RingCentral has an IOS app that permits one to use the iPhone as a business phone from anywhere.
For the past year I have seen improvement in the app after opening an initial support ticket in which I outlined the issues. .
Then there was an update and now the app is not accessible.
It is interesting to speculate on why this happened:
* Did the developer for get about accessibility?
* Was a new developer hired?
This is the response I received from RingCentral after contacting them.
<<<Sorry for not responding earlier - I heard back from a product marketing manager late yesterday. He told me that A11Y compliance isn't currently on our product roadmap. If someone told you a year ago that we were planning to add it, that person seems to have been misinformed. Very sorry for the lack of communication on our part. You are quite right that accessibility compliance is something we'll have to look at in the future, if we hope to sell our product to government users. Right now we're focused on creating more of a corporate "unified communications" solution.
Again, my apologies for the confusion.
>>>
So even if someone has a good idea for accessibility and starts down that path it provides no guarantee that it will stick.
The biggest issue we have is education and advocation.
How many Blind small business owners could benefit from an accessible phone system?
In the case of the RingCentral app the cost of accessibility was already paid for mostly by Apple in making the standard frameworks accessible out of the box.
The app became inaccessible because the developer did not follow the rules set forth for accessibility development.
The response of management is more telling because it demonstrates and absolute discrimination against Blind business owners.
That is there target market and there is a blatant decision not to provide accessibility.
On May 21, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Tracy Carcione <carcione at access.net> wrote:
> But do they have to know it's "disabled stuff"? What if it was advertised
> like "See these nifty things you can do without needing to look at the
> screen"?
> My sister can see OK, and she didn't know Voiceover was on her iphone.
> Now she'd like to use it, although maybe not enough to go through the
> learning curve.
> Tracy
>
>> Jim,
>>
>> You pick an interesting example. While I would agree that people are not
>> using VoiceOver in their cars, the van I carpool in has
>> a system where the phone connects to the stereo system and in-coming calls
>> are announced including who is calling along with other
>> status messages. However, this is part of the car's system and not the
>> phone. It does not read text messages, but our driver
>> wishes it did. I think some of the trouble is marketing, but I also tend
>> to think that is speech is promoted to the public that
>> it is likely some of the extra capabilities we need will get lost. Even
>> if there is a need, sighted people don't want to use that
>> there disabled stuff.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Steve Jacobson
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 06:46:41 -0700, Jim Barbour wrote:
>>
>>> I must say I've always been very skeptical of the argument that if
>>> devices talked sighted people would use them when driving,
>> etc. The iPhone seems to be a pretty good indication that this doesn't
>> happen. sighted people could use voice over when driving
>> if they wanted to, but rarely do.
>>
>>> Jim
>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On May 21, 2013, at 6:05 AM, "Tracy Carcione" <carcione at access.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Accessibility of websites might not help the general population, but I
>>>> think accessibility of gadgets and appliances would. I heard the
>>>> person
>>>> from the Trace Center make this argument many years ago. It still
>>>> hasn't
>>>> happened as he said, but it still seems right to me.
>>>> If If cell phones talk, people have less need to look at the screen,
>>>> and,
>>>> hopefully, that leads to less distracted driving or walking.
>>>> If a blind person can drive a car, a sighted person can use the car
>>>> while
>>>> playing computer games or working.
>>>> And, if appliances talk or are otherwise accessible, wouldn't that make
>>>> it
>>>> easier for elderly people losing their vision to stay in their homes?
>>>> Tracy
>>>>
>>>> .> 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 re
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.jacobson%40visi.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/carcione%40access.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/kfjelsted%40gmail.com
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list