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

Jim Barbour jbar at barcore.com
Mon Mar 3 00:50:33 UTC 2014 

It is absolutely true that companies often find it challenging to test large numbers of web pages against *any* screen reader, much less several of them.  Automating this kind of testing is exceptionally challenging.

However, I'm not aware of many companies which have a good program in place to make sure that accessible coding standards are part of their product development lifecycles.

In other words, I agree that testing is hard, but that's not where most web app development companies are stuck.

Jim

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 04:15:57PM -0800, Nicole Torcolini wrote:
> Some of the problems that companies face that make it look like they are not
> trying are:
> 1. Something working with some screen readers but not others
> 2. Not having a good way to test using screen readers
> 3. Screen readers not being up to speed with the latest trends
> Number 1 is particularly a problem if developers do try to test their code,
> but can only easily access certain screen readers.
> One of the causes of number 2 is the fact that there is often not a good way
> to capture what a screen reader says, at least not in a way that is useable
> in automated testing.
> An example of number 3 is how some older screen readers, such as JAWS, were
> made to work with static web pages, and the methods that they use don't
> often work well with dynamic web pages that are more like applications.
> Although it is not all of the problem, JMHO, a large part of the problem is
> that screen reader manufactures haven't changed the screen readers as the
> web has changed, or at least not enough.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike Freeman
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 3:23 PM
> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards,and
> legal requirements.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/jbar%40barcore.com
>

More information about the NFBCS mailing list