[nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and legal requirements.
John G. Heim
jheim at math.wisc.edu
Mon Mar 3 01:49:17 UTC 2014
Trying would include acquiring the knowledge and resources.
On Mar 2, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Nicole Torcolini wrote:
> Sometimes, developers do try, but they don't have the knowledge or
> resources that they need.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of John G. Heim
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 5:18 PM
> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards,and
> legal requirements.
>
> The bulk of the problem with accessibility is lack of effort on the part of
> developers. There's a little bit of it being a difficult technical problem
> but the vast majority of accessibility problems could be solved fairly
> easily with a little effort from developers. It's really not that different
> from security issues. If you know anything about security, you know that the
> vast majority of security issues in applications are the result of
> carelessness on the part of the developers. It's the same with
> accessibility. Mostly, its not that its too hard. Mostly it's that they are
> not really trying.
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2014, at 6:15 PM, 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%40ch
>>> a
>>> 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%40earthlin
>>> k
>>> .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%40earthlin
>>> k
>>> .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%40waveca
>> ble.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%40waveca
>> ble.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/jheim%40math.wisc.e
>> du
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
>
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list