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

[Steve Jacobson]

Mike,

While I am one who advocates that we used readers rather than letting technology stop us, I think that current and future technology requirements mean 
that we have to find ways to maximize accessibility.  It could be that laws will have to be used to provide us with a sort of safety-net of technology.  What I 
find on my job is that it is not as easy any more to structure work to make efficient use of readers.  Some may disagree with me, but I don't think it is going 
to be sustainable to hire a fulltime reader as a reasonable accommodation for the long run.  It is rare that one could do that in the private sector even 
though some have been lucky enough to have that happen.  Paying for readers ourselves has always been an option, but there are limits.  With today's 
technology, reading remotely is possible now and that might open up some options.  Still, I recently heard an ad for a water softener which stated that you 
can now reset your water softener with a simple touch screen.  We need to do what we can to avoid having to have fulltime data attendants, but no how 
to use readers when we need to rather than not getting things done.

You are correct about my thermostat example, that reading the display doesn't tell you everything, but my point was that we need to be aware of when we 
expect the rest of the world to follow a given standard and when we can make our screen readers not require that standard.  We should take care to 
explore the limits of what our access software can do to make standards as general and least restrictive as possible.  When I say "we," I don't mean 
average screen reader users, but the companies that develop them and whatever additional research we can find a way to undertake.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:29:52 -0800, Mike Freeman wrote:

>Right you are, both Doug and Steve. Laws and regulations are very important
>but they are insufficient, especially in technological environments which
>are changing very rapidly. Part of the problem is that those who implement
>or must abide by these laws and regulations want clarity and specificity --
>if I conform to the six hundred forty-eight directives shown in Guideline X,
>I will have ensured accessibility and will be in compliance with the law and
>thus am immune from being sued. Yet this is precisely what cannot be
>guaranteed in general although NFB is taking a stab at it in the educational
>environment with the TEACH Act proposal. After all, by definition we cannot
>foretell the future (neither Nostradamus nor Edgar Casey were lawyers and
>neither is around anymore -- grin). The software the R&D Committee was
>looking at years ago to analyze computer screens and the LCD display device
>Steve was playing with may be a partial solution but neither tells the blind
>person what he/she must do to act upon the information the screen or display
>is conveying.

>We should by all means continue to work on laws, regulations and devices to
>help us. But I am not sanguine that we will come anywhere near close to a
>solution to our accessibility problems anytime soon. And this is in an age
>when access to technology is becoming a necessity in order to acquire and
>keep an increasing number of jobs.

>I truly think we are going to have to revisit use of human readers, much as
>people under forty do not want to contemplate this.

>Mike Freeman


>-----Original Message-----
>From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Doug Lee
>Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 1:50 PM
>To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and
>legal requirements.

>Laws reflect what some people think should be done at the moment they are
>made. As the thoughts change, so the laws, eventually. It was the same in
>the days of Esther. :-) They can help or hinder, and I see the point of
>democracy to be minimizing the latter, with the side effect of also
>minimizing the former.

>As Steve effectively noted though, laws lag behind thought. Thought in turn
>lags behind the environment that forms it; and in the technical arena,
>changes in that environment only accelerate as time passes. I see all this
>is another defense of Steve's view that laws are insufficient, and more so
>as time goes on. We can't stop fighting for better laws, but we must realize
>that's not all we have to do.

>On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 02:24:48PM -0600, Steve Jacobson wrote:
>John,

>You may have a point regarding being negative, but I think you are
>interpreting as negative the feeling that some of us have that legislation
>and enforcement is not sufficient by itself.  I'm not opposed to trying to
>pass laws, but I think that we have to try to do more than that, so my
>comments should not be taken as opposing legislation.  
>Further, the NFB has tried to get some pretty broad technology laws past and
>our best success have been when we have focused our efforts on a segment of
>the population which is why we have been working particularly hard on
>educational software.  At the very least, having legislation in place gives
>us a way to bring the blatent violaters of accessibility guidelines in line
>and legislation can provide a vehicle to educate others about accessibility.
>I am not as troubled as Mike by the fact that there is already legislation
>in place that in the purest sense can't be inforced very well.  I think,
>however, there is still room for me to feel somewhat negative and feel, at
>the very least, that legislation is not enough.  

>Am I better off than I was twenty years ago?  It kind of sounds like a
>presidential campaign slogan, doesn't it.  
>I am not so certain that I am if you look at technology very broadly.  Let's
>be clear, though.  If the question was changed to ask whether I am better
>off because of the efforts we have made, legislation and other efforts, I
>would definitely say "yes."  I think, though, that a lot of our successes
>have been to simply keep up, very necessary successes to say the least, and
>some successes such as iPhones and Apple TV's and the potential new Comcast
>cable boxes go somewhat beyondkeeping up.  On the computer, some of what I
>have learned to do to edit sound is beyond what I would have dreamed of 20
>years ago.  The fact that we are starting to be able to interact with touch
>screens is a success as well, but while we should give apple a good deal of
>credit, I would be surprised if they didn't look at the work done by the
>TRACE Center.  There are other advancements, too, and it is right for us to
>not allow ourselves to forget those.  Twenty years ago we didn't know if we
>were going to be able to use Windows, but in time we did, and the work done
>to make the MAC accessible back then by Berkeley Systems needs also to be
>remembered.  

>Having said all that, I cannot honestly say that I am as comfortable with
>Microsoft Word today as I was with WordPerfect under DOS.  I am not one who
>feels the ribbon is all that bad, but things happen sometimes that cause
>delays in speech and sometimes formatting mysteries that reduce my
>confidence.  At least I can use the same software as my co-workers so there
>are advantages.  I should also add that I think many aspects of using Word
>are getting better, but this is almost twenty years after the Microsoft
>Accessibility summit.  I really don't feel that email is better than it was
>ten years ago.  It is adequte, but we're seeing more crashing of certain
>programs and others are updated so often that it seems to be a continuous
>battle to keep them current with screen readers.  It is great that I can buy
>from Amazon and Target now, and without forcing the issue we probably
>couldn't use their sites today.  However, I was buying CD's online ten and
>fifteen years ago at least, so at least some of these notable successes were
>necessary to keep me doing what I was already doing.  I would say I could
>set up and operate pretty much any stereo system and even VCR twenty years
>ago, although I had to follow steps I wrote down to program them.  There are
>many functions on many stereos I cannot access now at all.  .  We could run
>down an entire list of appliances that are not very useable any more.  The
>NFB tried to pass a bill to require access to home appliances, but it didn't
>get anywhere.  In time it might.

>So what's my point?  It certainly isn't that we should give up or that we
>not pass legislation.  I am also aware of the fact that some of what I've
>outlined above may be addressed some by legislation that has already passed
>and that there are efforts already underway to make this better.  Still, I
>think there is room to ask some questions about how sustainable our
>successes can be and what will happen as more and more products incorporate
>technology such as touch screens and other user input interfaces.  I've also
>seen some erosion of accessibility within companies in the private sector.
>It is less that anyone is taking away accessibility intentionally, but
>rather that tools have become more complicated and some of the laws and
>regulations that apply to government, education, and public access do not
>apply clearly if at all to internal private employment situations.

>Please allow me to use an example to illustrate why I think we need more
>than legislation.  We are now seeing that thousands of hotel rooms use
>digital thermostats that are not very usable by blind people who cannot read
>the displays.  We could probably pass a law that all thermostats in hotels
>must be accessible, and they may even be covered to some degree.  There are
>talking thermostats that, in many cases, could probably function
>adequately.At what point would it make sense to provide to each blind person
>requesting it, an electronic  reader that could read the thermostat displays
>and probably other displays rather than replacing tens of thousands of
>thermostats?  
>I tried the prototype of an LCD reader some seven years ago or so, so while
>there is no current device to do that, it doesn't seem impossible.  It seems
>to me that we need to do more work to figure out when we can change how we
>interact with a device or web page as opposed to requiring that thousands of
>people make changes for us.  Of course, I don't really see us doing away
>with standards, but I'm afraid that as technology advances, standards as we
>now know them will either become more and more complex or they won't be that
>relevent.  We need very much to understand better what might be done that
>could make development of accessible software and web pages simpler.  
>Although it is simpler than today's problems, I remember how we used to
>consider frames not to be accessible and we even forced web sites to remove
>them.  Then suddenly frames were all right, even useful, and all the work to
>prevent their use was suddenly largely wasted.  While we create standards,
>we need to have a better sense of where we are going with our accessibility
>tools.

>I don't claim that what I have written here reflects the views of everyone
>who might be skeptical of legislation, but I think to one degree or another
>it does reflect our collective experience and some of our frustrations.

>Best regards,

>Steve Jacobson

>>On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 01:04:33PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
>>It isn't that difficult to generate a good list of the bugs that need 
>>the most attention. The list doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
>>Someone might correctly suggest that bug A is more important than bug B 
>>but if bug B gets fixed instead, it's still a good thing. And you can 
>>generate all the fake bug reports you like, it's not going to make any 
>>difference. We're not *that* stupid.

>>One thing that strikes me about the conversations on this list ...
>>There sure is a lot of negativism. Practically every idea is met with 
>>the response, "Oh, that will never work." You'd think us blind people 
>>were still using clay tablets. But innovations occur every day that 
>>move us forward. You might argue it's one step forward and two back.
>>But if that was the case, I wouldn't be here. none of  us would. It 
>>certainly is my impression that things have gotten considerably better 
>>over the past 20 years, not worse. And there is a lot of reason for 
>>hope that the future will be better still.

>>I think it hurts our cause for so many people to focus so much on the 
>>failures especially when there are so many successes to look at.
>>Focusing on the failures makes us afraid to try.

>>On 03/05/14 12:21, Doug Lee wrote:
>>>Whatever else may be said, I confess there's a certain amusing appeal 
>>>to the concept of a bounty-hunter mentality to open-source bug fixing.
>>>I can see now, bug reports being submitted by someone nicknamed Boba 
>>>Fett... or would it morph to Boba Git, because of the popular version 
>>>control system? But surely I digress... :-)
>>>
>>>On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:04:02PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
>>>At www.iavit.org, we have been contemplating putting a "bounty" on 
>>>certain bugs in orca and nvda. We don't have any money but the idea is 
>>>that you get $50 or $100 for contributing code that fixes a particular 
>>>bug.


>>-- 
>>Doug Lee                 dgl at dlee.org                http://www.dlee.org
>>SSB BART Group           doug.lee at ssbbartgroup.com
>http://www.ssbbartgroup.com
>>"While they were saying among themselves it cannot be done, it was 
>>done." --Helen Keller

>>_______________________________________________
>>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/steve.jacobson%40vis
>>i.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/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
>"A mailing list is a crude but effective cross between a chain letter and a
>shouting match."  -Andrew Kantor

>_______________________________________________
>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/steve.jacobson%40visi.com