[nfbcs] Ethics of screen reader friendly development
Nicole Torcolini
ntorcolini at wavecable.com
Wed May 22 03:17:01 UTC 2013
Yes, and I have also seen products advertised as talking or accessible when
really it was just an extra, partially functional extra add on. I have a
clock that announces the time and if the alarm is on or off along with what
time the alarm is set to, but the time setting features do not talk. It
clearly was not really made to be accessible (I don't use it anymore).
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve Jacobson
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:35 AM
To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Ethics of screen reader friendly development
Tracy,
That was part of my point, that some of this is marketing. However, I am
also concerned that if marketing is done to the general public and it is
successful, then the public's preferences will trump ours such as slow but
clear voices. Somehow we have to maintain the purpose of such features so
that there are at least options for us. I think that we're at a difficult
place right now where accessibility is concerned, and we're going to have to
do some thinking outside of the box.
Best regards,
Steve Jacobson
On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:03:29 -0400, Tracy Carcione 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%40v
>>>isi.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/steve.jacobson%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/ntorcolini%40wavecable.co
m
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list