[nfbcs] Ethics of screen reader friendly development

[John G. Heim]

Probably the best example of accessibility tools accidently helping 
people who are not disabled is voiceover making it way more efficient to 
use an IOS device with a bluetooth keyboard:

http://decadentwaste.net/decadentwaste/2011/03/navigate-using-a-bluetooth-keyboard-on-your-ios-device

But I don't think you can justify accessibility entirely in terms of it 
being good for everyone, not directly anyway. It's good for everyone in 
that it makes us a better, stronger society in the long run.
On 05/21/13 11:10, Steve Jacobson wrote:
> 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/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
>

-- 
---
John G. Heim, 608-263-4189, jheim at math.wisc.edu