[nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and legal requirements.
Mike Freeman
k7uij at panix.com
Mon Mar 3 15:47:44 UTC 2014
How can education teach what can't even be defined?
Mike Freeman
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nancy Coffman
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 5:40 AM
To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and
legal requirements.
The education system needs to teach about accessibility. It is not fair to
those who need it for accessibility to be learned as on-the-job training.
Nancy Coffman
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com> wrote:
>
> Like I said, learn to disagree in public.
>
> We're not talking about contracts here. If the government has contracted
to write an app then accessibility ought to be a requirement -- even if the
department receiving the program doesn't have any blind people working
there. I'm sure we can agree that this is a good idea and that it's not
hapening right now.
>
> What I'm talking about are startups, or other situations where a new app
is getting off the ground. In the very beginnings of this apps lifecycle
(a few product designers or just developers trying to build something brand
new), it's not yet the right time to think hard about accessibility or
security.
>
> Jim
>
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 08:40:48PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
>>
>> Well, you're just making no sense. In your world, a bank president goes
to the programmers. He says, "How's that on-line banking app going?" The
programmers say, "Really good. We have the ability for our customers to pay
bills, transfer money from one account to another, check their balances. the
only thing we can't do yet is keep hackers from getting in and stealing all
their money. Other than that we are ready to go."
>>
>> You know that if you want to sell a computer system to the Department of
Defense, you have to meet certain security standards, right? why do you
think that is? Imagine a defense contractor trying to sell the Pentagon a
new missile system. The contractor is like, "this missile is so fast can get
anywhere in the world in two minutes and so accurate that deliver its
payload to withing 2 feet of its target." The Pentagon says, "Yeah, but the
control system is insecure. They enemy will just take control and fire it
back at us." The contractor replies, "Yeah, but look how fast and accurate
it is."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 7:34 PM, Jim Barbour wrote:
>>>
>>> and John I think you're looking at it wrong, so you and I may just have
to learn to disgree in public <grin>
>>>
>>> I would, in fact, argue that paying too much attention to security
concerns early in a product's design cycle can stifle innovation.
>>>
>>> If a product can't be released as a 1.0 product unless it's deamed
"secure" by a security audit, that's going to be too high a bar for a lot of
folks. The same question gets asked about security a lot that I'm asing
about accessibility. That is, when is the product deemed "worthy of going
through a security audit"
>>>
>>> Your kernel patch comment is interesting, but off topic. I'll start a
>>> new thread asking more about that.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:06:46PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
>>>> I think you're looking at it wrong. Would you argue that security
concerns are stifling innovation with respect to on-line banking? Of course
not. It's simply something that has to be there or the technology simply
isn't ready to go. Accessibility is no different than other features like
stability and security. Would Google have released gmail before they had
security issues pretty well in hand? :Okay, here's your new email account.
We don't really know how to keep people from stealing your password and
reading your mail but we're working on that."
>>>>
>>>> Just as companies tend to pay lip service to security issues until they
get bitten by them, they don't pay attention to accessibility until they
have to. The only issue is how to change tthat.
>>>>
>>>> I've been struggling to get a patch into the linux kernel that makes
hardware speech synthesizers work at boot time. Some of the kernel
developers don't get what the big deal is. But would they release a version
of the operating system that didn't have video at boot time? Imagine an
operating system where the users had to wait until the computer started up
and then type a command to get the monitor to work. That would be insane.
Nobody would say they had to put it out that way because it would take too
long to fix. It just wouldn't be considered to be done until that problem
was addressed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Jim Barbour wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <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%40charter.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/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/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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/nancy.l.coffman%40gmail.c
om
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list