[nfbcs] Screen Reader Support Models - was NVDA product question

Fri Nov 14 16:39:25 UTC 2014

I associate myself with Steve's remarks below.

Mike Freeman

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve Jacobson
via nfbcs
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 8:06 AM
To: nfbcs list
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Screen Reader Support Models - was NVDA product
question

This article and the issues it raises are very important in my opinion.  I
think we have a somewhat false sense of 
security regarding our ability to use computers and access software in many
ways.  

First, I did not interpret anything Tim said in his article as minimizing
the efforts of those working on NVDA.  I 
certainly keep a copy on my computer as a means to help me out when my main
screen reader hangs up, and NVDA has a 
lot of power.  My interpretation of his point was more like this.  How would
it go over if sighted people on the 
job had to depend upon volunteers to build and support their computer
monitors?  That just wouldn't be accepted.  
Our screen readers are our computer monitors, and I think he was asking why
we should expect anything less for 
something that is so important.  Those of you who are working for someone
else are likely very aware of how really 
fragile our accessibility is.  If you are in full control over the software
you use, the picture is a good bit 
better because you can control what you use and could, for example, pick
software that works with NVDA.  Where I 
work, I regularly use two programs that work fairly well with JFW and
Window-Eyes and do not work with NVDA.  I am 
not blaming NVDA as these are both older pieces of software, but both JAWS
and Window-Eyes are a little more robust 
and offer some ability for a user to stretch their functionality somewhat
easier than is the case with NVDA.  Since 
it means money in my pocket, paying the price for a commercial screen reader
is worth it to me.  However, that 
doesn't mean I would not donate to NVDA, and NVDQA has often been better at
implementing modern approaches to 
accessibility.  That is a valuable contribution that cannot be over-stated.
The Wikipedia model was mentioned in 
another note, and while I use that resource some, I don't see that as an
effective approach to screen reader 
development that needs to exist in employment settings where there is
security involved.  A screen reader is not a 
collection of information that you can cross-check for accuracy, it is
closer to a computer monitor that bridges 
software to hardware.  I am not arguing that there might not be changes to
the model that supports NVDA that we 
couldn't consider.  Discussing alternatives is the point to all of this
after all.

The commercial screen reader model isn't perfect either.  As I see it,
screen readers, including NVDA, are 
so busy trying to keep up with new versions of Windows and Microsoft Office
that they don't have a lot of resources 
to try to really innovate.  Software and web pages have changed dramatically
over the past ten years, but how we 
get information has not changed all that much.  Even the efforts of screen
readers to take advantage of ARIA seems 
to be painful.  Large companies like Google and Microsoft and make sweeping
changes to their software, provide very 
basic accessibility by exposing the information in their changes, and then
leave it to the screen reader developers 
to make it all work for you and me.  The time and money that they have to
spend just to keep up is not 
insignificant and a lot of 
the money that we pay for upgrades goes to just staying even with what
particularly the large companies change.  I 
have personally witnessed the time it can take to figure out why something
doesn't work right and it can be 
extreme.  We expect our screen readers to know when a menu pops up and to
track menu selections as they have been 
doing for twenty years.  If finances were unlimited, a dream, I know,
shouldn't there be a way to automatically 
tell us what is important on a web page in a similar manner?  There are
tools we can use, but thinking about what 
is really important on a web page isn't something screen readers really have
time to to research to any major 
degree, and they have concentrated on what they can get from HTML, but could
useful analysis of appearance help us?  
How about a command to jump to the text with the largest fonts or analyze
text color for example?

What about the third model, building in a screen reader into the operating
system?  From a technical point of view, 
this is probably the most sound approach.  However, I, again, have the same
reservations as were expressed in the 
article.  I won't mention 
Apple as he did, as that always leads to an emotional battle.  I know,
though, that there have been bugs with 
accessibility both in Microsoft office and Windows for a few years that are
known to Microsoft.  Microsoft sends us 
updates all the time to their software and operating system.  How often do
you run Windows or Office Update?  But 
some accessibility bugs have to wait for the "next major release" whatever
that means.  We have also seen Microsoft 
leave out or complicate keystroke access to Office 
2013 that can only have happened because making keystrokes work well isn't a
real priority.  This is within their 
own software, and keyboard access is something some sighted people still
use, but it still gets what appears to be 
casual consideration at best.  How can I feel confident that they 
would maintain a screen reader over time, and what priority would they give
bugs that might be present in handling 
competing products?  What priority would a Microsoft screen reader give to
Open Office support, for example?  There 
are similar questions one could ask about Apple although the environment is
somewhat different.  

The point is that there are some real drawbacks to all of the current
models.  Add to that the fact that software 
and web development are extremely dynamic right now and probably will be for
some time to come.  Now look at our 
market size which is relatively small.  Also look at the laws that require
accessibility which apply most 
completely to us and state governments with only limited application to the
private sector.  Add to that that 
people are finding that many web sites and some software used within
government where laws do apply are not very 
accessible or accessible at all.  It isn't that efforts are not being made,
but the numbers of web pages are huge 
and the pressure to change is great.  

As consumers, we really need to think about all of this as we move forward.
It is one thing to evaluate all of 
this in terms of our leisure activities.  That can be frustrating but it is
mostly manageable because we have some 
control over our environment.  But in particular, 
how do we deal with web sites and software used within parts of the private
sector where even ADA may not apply all 
that completely, where "undo burden" may accurately describe the changes
that would need to be made in some cases?  
These are real challenges that go beyond insulting one's favorite screen
reader or web  browser, and this is what 
we really need to try to address.  When I attended the first Microsoft
Accessibility "Summit" in 1995 and when I 
participated in discussions of the accessibility of JAVA in 1998, I never
dreamed we would still be fighting for 
accessibility as we must in 2014.  There needs to be serious thought as to
how we can do better in the future, and 
we need to discuss it thoroughly and reasonably.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:11:58 -0800, Mike Freeman via nfbcs wrote:

>George:

>I consider Mother Theresa and Lions Clubs just as paternalistic as anything
>having to do with the blind. I *do* subscribe to Tim's logic.

>Mike

>-----Original Message-----
>From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of George via nfbcs
>Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 6:38 PM
>To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [nfbcs] NVDA product question

>Yes, Aaron, I totally agree with you.

>Tim's thinking is not convincing and it's too much centered on affairs of 
>the blind, leaving aside a big reality.

>For example,
>> Do we
>> welcome it simply because the recipients are people with a disability?

>Not at all. These philanthropic efforts have been made for many centuries
in

>other areas, too. Just think of Lion's Club, Mother Theresa, etc. History 
>shows us many philanthropic actions made by kings and rich people, in art, 
>for example, a rich madam supported Beethoven and now we have his music.
>So there's nothing wrong with the fund model they chose for NVDA and, in 
>fact, I think it's the most appropriate one for such an enterprise.
>It's a growing trend nowadays, when many people try to help each other. We 
>can't deny all this efforts without disregarding today's reality. Like 
>wikipedia, there are many projects and they are very useful, not only to
the

>blind, and they are based on donations. Saying that all these projects have

>a weaker base is absolutely wrong, I think. Companies also go out of 
>business.
>Being blind doesn't require to stick to a business model.

>George

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Aaron Cannon via nfbcs" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
>To: "Gary Wunder" <gwunder at earthlink.net>; "NFB in Computer Science Mailing

>List" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 11:32 PM
>Subject: Re: [nfbcs] NVDA product question

>>I think the reason we haven't seen more arguments with Tim's article
>> is that, frankly, his main points are hard to track.  I can't complain
>> too much though, as I suspect that he writes much more clearly than I
>> do. :)
>>
>> As for what he says about NVDA:
>> "The work that the developers of NVDA have done is exceptional. On a
>> small budget they have developed a really good product and have
>> provided a free screen reader to many thousands of people around the
>> world who couldn't previously afford one, especially in developing
>> countries. Their technical skills and dedication are to be applauded;
>> however, I have a problem with the funding model they have chosen.
>> Philanthropic funding is at best a fragile beast, and it often doesn't
>> extend to covering services like training and support, which can be
>> the most important components of accessibility (especially in
>> education). The bigger issue of equity and why we accept such a
>> fundamental right as access to a computer to be at the whim of
>> philanthropic generosity should be of tremendous concern. Do we
>> welcome it simply because the recipients are people with a disability?
>> Why is this particular group of people not worthy of a business model
>> that guarantees standards of support, service, and viability? The
>> developers of NVDA need investors, not handouts."
>>
>> Perhaps my brain just isn't working right this morning, but I am
>> having a hard time following his objections to NVDA.  If I understand
>> it right, he is saying that the funding model for NVDA is fragile, so
>> we shouldn't trust it.  He also seems to be arguing that it's based on
>> charity, and so beneath us, and besides, it doesn't allow for user
>> support and training.
>>
>> If this is correct, I remain unconvinced.  NVDA support is available
>> from various organizations, for a fee.  Jaws users, on the other hand,
>> end up also paying for support, but they do so up front, whether they
>> need it or not.
>>
>> Training is also available for a fee, but that's certainly not unique
>> to NVDA.  Jaws does come with some training materials, but similar
>> materials are also available for free for NVDA.
>>
>> I agree that NVDA funding is more fragile than we should like, but
>> much of what we the blind rely on is philanthropic in nature.  And, if
>> one source of funding dries up, another one is found.  And anyway, I
>> don't see traditional sources of investment funding being
>> substantially more reliable than philanthropic ones.
>>
>> Investors/donors come, and investors/donors go, and organizations
>> either find new ones, figure out a way to due without, or fail.  So
>> far, NVAccess seems to have been able to find new ones when needed.
>>
>> Consider what would happen if FS and NVAccess went under, and all the
>> developers moved on to bigger and better things (or at least things
>> that would provide them with a paycheck).  Jaws would be gone.  You're
>> already installed copies would probably work, but there would be no
>> way to install the full version on new machines.
>>
>> NVDA, on the other hand, would still be available.  Not only would it
>> still be available to install, but it would be available to improve,
>> fix, and whatever else someone wanted to do with it, within the bounds
>> of the GPL license.  It's even possible that a new group of developers
>> would come along and keep the project going.
>>
>> In short, Jaws belongs to FS.  NVDA belongs, in a very literal sense,
>> to everyone.  I'd much rather see money invested into something I own
>> than into something I don't.
>>
>> That's all for now.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/osocalmo%40yahoo.co.jp

>_______________________________________________
>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.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