[nfbcs] Screen Reader Support Models - was NVDA product question
Steve Jacobson
steve.jacobson at visi.com
Sun Nov 16 23:55:48 UTC 2014
Nicole and others,
Thank you for your response, and I would be very interested in the specific points of disagreement. However, before we are certain we disagree, let me
explain a bit more what I was trying to get at in the passage you quoted. I'll paste the passage in here once more for clarity.
The passage mentioned reads as follows: "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."
First, the tone of this response comes from my experience as a frustrated consumer and not the information technology professional that I am. However,
what perhaps should have been included is that I am not certain what the solution is. I do not think that we can succeed by stopping new development
and changes to let existing screen reader technology keep up. Nevertheless, let me provide examples that caused me to write the above.
When Microsoft moved from Internet Explorer 8 to Internet Explorer 9, they changed how text was written to the screen. The old method allowed screen
readers to build an off-screen model that could be called upon in a number of instances. While MSAA was used to present the web page to screen readers,
the off-screen model is what was used when one needed to explore a screen with the mouse pointer or the JAWS cursor. It also played a role when one
received feedback when editing an entry in an edit box and also was called upon to assist when controls were not correctly labeled. This generally was
discontinued in Internet Explorer 9 and the replacement for getting information to screen readers was not complete and contained bugs. Screen readers
were required to provide feedback using the new system when one moved the mouse pointer or JAWS cursor. This was a completely different approach for
them and involved significant development for screen readers. However, some of the problems encountered by screen readers were due to Microsoft bugs
that were known to Microsoft and were not addressed until later versions of Internet Explorer. To some degree, consumers were being told by some
websites that they needed to "move up to a modern browser" but the move caused other aspects of browsing not to work. This is one example that, from a
consumer's perspective, I believe is accurately described by the passage above.
Now let me put my Information Technology hat on for a moment. One reason Microsoft made this change was to make Windows more stable and less open
to hacks. Also, Microsoft let it be known that this would be happening well in advance so from their perspective, they made a good faith effort to provide
advanced warning. We are a small group of their customers so bugs that affect us get less priority. Still, the fact remains that screen readers are kept so
busy keeping up with changes in Microsoft's technology that there isn't much opportunity to think about new ways of conveying information. There have
been other changes. Changing from the menu structure used for more than twenty years to the ribbon caused JAWS to spend time developing the Virtual
Ribbon that looked like the old menus. In this case, screen readers had to do some work, but probably more of the effort was done by each of us. Again,
though, time had to be spent figuring out how to take advantage of what had become a more visual format just to keep doing what we had been doing.
Similar changes have occurred when new versions of Windows were released.
How many of us logged into Google to manage our mailing lists only to find a new interface that didn't work well with screen readers? We could use the old
interface, but it had a limited remaining life. The same thing happened to the web version of GMail. The new interfaces had more power in some cases, but
for us to take advantage of this power, screen readers had to again put significant effort into supporting what Google was doing. Changes resulted in
significant work to be done to allow us to continue performing tasks that we had been performing. Eventually, Google implemented elements of ARIA and
other approaches, but these were not that well supported by screen readers. Had screen readers implemented ARIA when it was developed, what Google
implemented would have worked sooner, but screen readers were busy with more pressing changes. One could find other examples within Google as well.
There have been changes to their search page for example that caused screen readers to make adjustments.
What I have laid out here is a very one-sided perspective because it is what we as blind people experience. However it raises some very interesting and
important questions. For one, how realistic is it to expect technology to develop only as fast as fairly small assistive technology companies can implement it?
Not very. How much responsibility to companies who create change have to provide a complete accessible experience for us, so we can take advantage
of it immediatly rather than a year or two later as can often happen? I would contend that the pressure of change is too great to be slowed down to any
significant degree for any single group of people. Where laws might apply, the letter of the law is met while the spirit of the law is not. We need either to
expect companies to not just expose information, but to understand better how we as blind people access information, or we need screen readers to be
more robust and able to keep up with change. Over the past few years, more of the responsibility for accessibility has been placed upon companies.
Having screen readers deal with blindness specific issues and companies deal with exposing information makes the most sense to me, but it cannot be
done as things exist today. Just pumping more money into screen reader development may not be enough, either, and it is a certainty that consumers
probably cannot pay higher prices for screen readers. Where will the money come from?
There is a lot here that needs to be discussed, studied and explored by persons much marter than I am. However, I believe it has to be done if we are
going to remain able to be employed, particularly in the private sector.
Best regards,
Steve Jacobson
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 19:08:15 -0800, Nicole Torcolini via nfbcs wrote:
>I agree with most of your points. However, I do question this one:
>"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."
>Nicole
>-----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/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/steve.jacobson%40visi.com
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list