[nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and legal requirements.

Sun Mar 2 23:22:31 UTC 2014

With respect, I suspect that a goodly number are *not* trying very hard.
However, there *is* what must be a frustrating issue for some of the
companies -- that of designing software or a web site to be accessible
according to the guidelines and then discovering that it is fully accessible
with one screen-reader but not with others. :-)

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Torcolini
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 2:42 PM
To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and
legal requirements.

Although I am pretty sure that there are some companies out there that
aren't trying and/or don't care, I think that we need to be sure that the
companies are not trying before going after them. 

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Jim Barbour
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 10:52 AM
To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
Subject: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and legal
requirements.

<note> I'm starting a new thread about this topic because frankly I don't
know if what I'm about to say applies to new versions of MS office.  I truly
don't know if MS is innovating their user interfaces or if they're just
being lazy, and would like for *that* conversation to take place on the
other thread.
</note>

I was having a similar discussion about innovation with Tim Elder this
weekend.

It is my rather strong opinion that allowing innovation does, pretty much by
definition, require that we allow new ideas to grow and flourish before
accessibility can be brought into the picture.

I would say that this applies to most areas of broad usability requirements
such as Internationalization, localization, varying color palettes,
ergonomic menu placement, etc., etc.

My favorite example of innovation that would have been stopped cold by
accessibility standards is the whole AJAX/web 2.0 model that Google
introduced with their gmail product in 2004.

Google could not have released gmail in 2004 if they had been required to
make it accessible.  They couldn't have, even if they'd wanted to. The
technology needed to make AJAX accessible, what we now call the ARIA roles,
hadn't been invented yet.

What basically had to happen was a rather long set of conversations amongst
web browser developers, screen reader developers, and web app developers to
figure out how to communicate the necessary information through the
necessary channels so that screen readers could get the right information at
the right time.

Within the general web usability community, AJAX/web 2.0 is pretty much the
big step for web apps becoming truly user friendly web apps, rather than
clunky, text based, app like web pages.

Therefore, it's pretty easy to argue that AJAX/web 2.0 was a very necessary
usability step for the general user community,  that the blind were
(sometimes still are) hurt by this usability improvement, and that screen
reading technology has to catch up.

This is pretty much the same dynamic that we've seen over and over again.
When DOS become windows 3.0, UNIX started using X-windows and session
managers, phones switched from keypads to touch screens, and probably a few
examples I missed.

So, where is the point at which a webapp stops being experimental and starts
being an entity that is expected to provide reasonable accomodations for
disabled users?

Is it when you have to acknowledge license agreement or terms of service
page?  Is it when you are expected to give them a credit card number?  Is it
when the site is made available to the general public, as apposed to a
limited beta? I can argue for and against each of those suggestions.  

I do know that the Department of Justice is wrestling with this question,
along with other questions about how does a web site provider know for sure
that they've made their website accessible.

I'm pretty sure that however the rules come down, they're going to seriously
hamper webapp providers and in turn give us relief from much of the
inaccessible web content we as blind people have to deal with on a very
regular basis.  I hope we keep both sides of this in mind when the DOJ
developes, releases, and begins enforcing these regulations.

In other words, I'm hoping we can figure out a way to go after Google,
facebook, United airlines, and the US government to get their web sites more
accessible; without also harassing tech startups, non-profits, and my high
cusin who just put up a really cool visualization tool for how he and his
friends listen to music.

Take Care All,

JIm

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:26:25PM -0600, Gary Wunder wrote:
> Dear Mike:
> 
> Perhaps one of the things we need to address is whether or not making 
> things screen reader compatible truly does limit innovation. Is screen 
> reader technology so far behind state-of-the-art technology that this 
> is the case, or are we talking about the failure to add a few lines of 
> code in this new technology that makes it play well with the assistive 
> technology we need? I lack the expertise to answer this question, but 
> it seems to me to be all important. We go to Congress each year with 
> the message that accessibility is easy and doable. I have never heard 
> the software companies argue to the contrary. What I do often hear 
> from software developers is that it is too costly to go back and 
> modify their legacy code but that new development will certainly 
> incorporate accessibility. Only recently have I heard the idea that 
> demanding accessibility threatens innovation. Can someone with some 
> expertise in state-of-the-art coding and state-of-the-art screen 
> reader technology set me straight. It seems to me that this argument, 
> if true, changes where we need to place our emphasis. If it is false, 
> it needs to be revealed as such. If it is true, then we need to place 
> more emphasis on bringing the screen readers into the second decade of the
twenty-first century.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike 
> Freeman
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:00 AM
> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
> 
> Gary:
> 
> I confess that I am beginning to think we're running up against 
> something we ought to be familiar with, being Federationists, but that 
> we don't want to face. That "something" is that we, the blind, are a 
> minority. This is something we're going to come up against more and 
> more as the general universe seeks bling more than information.
> 
> I confess that I'm beginning to suspect that unless and/or until we 
> come up with *absolutely* iron-clad legislation that, in effect, 
> limits what software vendors are allowed to do to those things wherein 
> we can guarantee accessibility -- in effect, limiting innovation  -- 
> something which I obviously know won't happen -- we're going to be 
> behind the eight ball even with vendors who claim to put accessibility
first.
> 
> I think more and more we will find ourselves forced to old, 
> tried-and-true but much-forgotten and much-maligned strategies -- such 
> as -- gasp -- use of readers.
> 
> I believe Deborah Kent-Stein and I talked about this a while back and 
> *she* thinks we'll eventually have to come round to a TapTapSee-like 
> app that allows us to point a camera at indecipherable screens and 
> have someone tell us what's going on. I don't think even that would 
> work as corporations would frown on their networks being used for such 
> things and might balk at the possibilities of theft of corporate secrets
or intellectual property.
> 
> Mike Freeman
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Gary Wunder
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 7:09 AM
> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
> 
> I still respectfully suggest that we put Microsoft on the agenda and 
> try to find out why accessibility always seems to be at the bottom of 
> their priority list. Did screen reader developers have a look at this 
> before it came on the market? Why is it that we were still wrestling 
> with problems in Outlook 2007 when Outlook 2010 hit the market? Is 
> there any kind of consistency between the statement "computing for 
> all" and the kind of release strategy we see from Microsoft?
> 
> Gary
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth 
> Campbell
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:08 AM
> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
> 
> Hello Curtis,
> 
> I am using Office 13 at home on my laptop running Windows 8. I must 
> confess that I did not have  the installation headaches as I purchased 
> my system and software from Bestbuy. The store in my area has a very 
> helpful geek squad, and I explained that I wanted to put the computer 
> through its paces using JAWS and so forth before I purchased it.
> The Best Buy folks took care of all of the installations for me as I 
> purchased a year of tech support for my devices.
> I primarily use office 13 for Outlook and Word. I am a fan of outlook, 
> so I was very disappointed to see that it often crashes, sometimes 
> while I'm reading or writing a message then mysteriously restarts. IN 
> Word, I haven't used the return address features since I'm creating 
> documents for use at home or at work, and I send 99 percent of my
correspondences via email.
> However, I've had a lot of frustration accessing documents that are 
> protected.
> JAWS will start reading the file and then stop. I believe what happens 
> is that Word shuts down and then restarts because I get a prompt about 
> recovering files which I can never find.
> Interestingly enough, I ran in to this problem last week when 
> accessing some documents for a Newsline seminar.
> I believe there is a way to unprotect files, but I haven't found it yet.
> Curtis, I agree that Office 13 is very much a work in progress, and I 
> hope Microsoft does come out with a service pack that will repair 
> these bugs which make it almost impossible to use Office reliably.
> At work, I an using Windows 7 and Office 2007,and I haven't had the 
> same frustrations.
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> Liz Campbell
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Curtis 
> Chong
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 11:06 AM
> To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
> 
> Greetings and felicitations:
> 
> Early this month, I took the rather bold step of upgrading from 
> Microsoft Office 2010 to Microsoft Office 2013. I am running the 
> 64-bit version of Windows 7 Professional.
> 
> I am interested in hearing from anyone out there who has taken a 
> similar journey. Permit me to provide a brief summary of my experiences so
far.
> 
> To begin with, the upgrade was not at all a trouble-free experience. 
> The first thing that Office 2013 wanted me to do was to link to either 
> an existing or new Microsoft account. There appears no way to avoid this
step.
> Since I had a Microsoft account (which I had never used for years and 
> years) I had to spend considerable time trying to get my password 
> back. This was only the first problem.
> 
> Then, Office wanted to set up Sky Drive on my computer, which I 
> allowed at first and have since removed.
> 
> After the install was finished (hours of work), I tried starting Word. 
> Right away, I received a message (which was not spoken by JAWS for 
> Windows) indicating that the program had stopped working. There seemed 
> to be no way around this problem. In the end, I had to contact 
> Microsoft Support over the telephone so that someone could remote into 
> my computer and run some kind of a repair.
> 
> While I am now using Microsoft Office 2013 to do real work, I must 
> point out that using this software is not without its problems. For 
> one thing, there are many situations during which JAWS goes silent and 
> during which one simply has to wait for something to happen. For 
> another, there are frequent instances when either Word or Outlook will 
> crash and then recover--all in complete silence (from a nonvisual access
standpoint).
> 
> I don't know about the rest of you, but one strategy which I often use 
> is to open a master document from Windows Explorer, bringing it into 
> Word, then save the document under a different name so that I can work 
> on it. On my system right now, there is no way to do this anymore. As 
> soon as I hit F12 to invoke the "Save As..." dialog, Word will immediately
crash.
> Interestingly, this does not happen on the Office 2013 system I am 
> using at work. Go figure.
> 
> There are two other problems worth mentioning. First, in Word, the 
> return and delivery address edit boxes in the Envelopes dialog are not 
> accessible with any screen access program. You simply cannot read the 
> text that may (or may not) be in these boxes. Secondly, in Outlook 
> 2013, the Signature dialog's edit box is just as inaccessible to a 
> nonvisual user as the Envelopes edit boxes in Word.
> 
> These days, for new users, it is just about impossible to acquire 
> Office 2010. This is most unfortunate inasmuch as I consider Office 
> 2013 to be very much a work in progress. I very much am looking 
> forward to a service pack on this from Microsoft.
> 
> Cordially,
> 
> Curtis Chong
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/batescampbell%40cha
> rter.n
> et
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/gwunder%40earthlink
> .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/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/ntorcolini%40wavecable.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/k7uij%40panix.com