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

George osocalmo at yahoo.co.jp
Fri Nov 14 19:07:48 UTC 2014


Steve,

I find a problem with Tim's article. We have to depart from reality, our 
reality, the reality of screen readers today. He's thinking to much and 
giving no further solution, I feel. Well, in fact, there is no other model 
than the three you mentioned: very expensive screen readers, screen readers 
included in the operating system and free screen readers based on donations. 
This is how our reality functions nowadays: it's very different from the 
reality of screens for the sighted people, which are hardware and reasonably 
priced.

> 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.

We don't know. It depends on reality: even sighted people depend on 
volunteers in urgent cases when there's a big natural disaster.  This just 
shows that the reality of screen readers is strange with very expensive 
screen readers and this happens in other areas of products for the blind, 
too. They are expensive many times, not only because the market is small, 
but also because governments pay for them: this doesn't happen so much in 
the reality of the sighted.
One day the manager of a company in Europe told me: "We don't care to lower 
the prices, because the government pays anyway".

We have to accept our reality, count on what we have and be thankful for it, 
otherwise we'll have less.

Having said that, NVDA is good, JAWS etc are good (if you can and want to 
pay for them) and VoiceOver is good.

Also, I feel that we should be careful not to be deceived in terms of the 
fund model. As you said, JAWS is much useful for you to do your work, but 
it's not because it is paid, but because it has more years of development. 
NVDA has made much progress in less years and it could be much better than 
JAWS in the near future, I would say. You have differences also among paid 
screen readers and its cost/price is based not on what you can get from them 
but on competition. I mean, price doesn't determine what they can do, but 
what they can do determines the price.

The problem I find with Tim's article is that it tends to make us to 
criticize free screen readers in favor of the business model and such an 
attitude is harmful for the blind. We have to work together and appreciate 
all what we have, otherwise we might lose very valuable things; philosophy 
or too much thinking doesn't always work.
But, if I have to choose, I would rather throw the business model in this 
case, not because it's paid, but because it's very expensive and that is 
what I did: I don't buy JAWS anymore; I use that money for other good things 
I want to have and enjoy; it could be a good trip, a new computer, etc. I 
wouldn't be able to do so with the amount of money necessary to buy a 
computer screen.
The problem is not that screen readers are paid or not: the problem is that 
they are very expensive and market rules don't work in this case, so free 
ones are a necessary alternative, or maybe the free ones can even normalize 
prices in the future.

Please remember, payment doesn't guarantee accessibility in all cases.

Regards,
George

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Jacobson via nfbcs" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
To: "nfbcs list" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 1:06 AM
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.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/osocalmo%40yahoo.co.jp
> 





More information about the NFBCS mailing list