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

[John G. Heim]

I can't imagine why you guys are so intent upon ignoring the facts.  You 
must know that your opinions are not those of the majority of people who 
study accessibility for a living. But more to the point, you simply keep 
restating your opinions without even addressing the facts i've pointed 
out. Here they are one more time and then I'm out of this  discussion:

1. Developers have an incentive to exaggerate the difficulty of making 
their software accessible. They're trying to save money.
2. Developers have a proven history of ignoring  similar structural 
features like security. If you don't believe me, read Richard A. Clark's 
book, "Cyberwar". It's available on bookshare. Richard Clark is not some 
wild-eyed conspiracy buff. He was head of the United States counter 
terrorism agency at one time.
3. There exist many applications and web sites that don't follow even 
the simplest of accessibility rules. You don't have to be an 
accessibility expert to know that images on web pages should have alt tags.

Now, those 3 facts don't prove anything. Just because developers have a 
motive to ignore accessability, it doesn't mean they do. Just because 
they have a history of ignoring security, it doesn't mean they are also 
ignoring accessibility. Just because they're not doing the easy things, 
with respect to accessibility it doesn't mean they could do the things 
they say are hard. But I just can't imagine why you folks are so willing 
to put your trust in the hands of software developers when in the long 
history of capitalism, the number of situations where companies 
deliberately did the right thing when it cost them money is dwarfed by 
the times they didn't. Companies almost  never just do the right thing 
unless they are forced. They exaggerate, drag their feet, and 
procrastinate.  Why would you believe   accessibility is any different?

This is just another example of corporations protecting their bottom 
line instead of doing the right thing. It's not even realistic to expect 
businesses to do the right thing. That's not the way the free enterprise 
system works.


On 03/02/14 20:04, Jim Barbour wrote:
> I agree with all Doug is saying.
>
> Jim
>
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 08:32:12PM -0500, Doug Lee wrote:
>> That strikes me as a pretty bold statement, unless you have worked
>> personally with a lot of developers. I have done this, and my finding
>> is that it's usually not a lack of will or effort but a lack of
>> know-how. Yes, some developers and companies don't put much into
>> accessibility by choice, but in 13 years of working in the
>> accessibility field as a developer and consultant myself, I do not
>> find this to be our biggest problem.
>>
>> I would say the accessibility development process runs something like this:
>>
>> 1. Discovery: Developers find out that people are using Tab and Space
>> on their dialogs and buttons instead of using a mouse. This really
>> does come as a revelation to some. On the tail end of this phase,
>> developers start getting an idea of scope: Not just tab order, but
>> control names, type information, values, states, etc. become
>> important.
>>
>> 2. Interest or resistance: Some developers at this point take real
>> interest in helping, and others don't. For the interested, help
>> implementing things well is often all that is needed. For the
>> not-so-enthusiastic, things like statistics, demonstrations, and yes
>> sometimes laws may warm them up to our need for their work.
>>
>> 3. Effort: Time to try code - and hopefully but often not, at this
>> point, the knowledge of how to write it well meets with the hands that
>> are charged with the work. This is what I'm saying is our biggest
>> problem, more than lack of will or effort: Lack of know-how at the
>> crucial times and at the right desks.
>>
>> 4. Standardization: What works once can get included in plans for
>> future development. Of course, this goes equally for right and not so
>> right solutions.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:17:32PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
>> 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%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/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/dgl%40dlee.org
>>
>> --
>> Doug Lee                 dgl at dlee.org                http://www.dlee.org
>> SSB BART Group           doug.lee at ssbbartgroup.com   http://www.ssbbartgroup.com
>> "You must let me try, for a true soldier does not admit defeat before
>> the battle."
>> --Helen Keller (in a letter to the president of Radcliffe College)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
>

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