[nfbcs] Screen Reader Support Models - was NVDA product question
Nicole Torcolini
ntorcolini at wavecable.com
Mon Nov 17 04:30:44 UTC 2014
A couple of questions to explore come to mind.
When security and accessibility work against each other, how do we resolve
it?
Should screen reader manufacturers focus more on the web or on the desktop?
If a big company has made their websites correctly using ARIA, but a
particular screen reader does not support or conform to ARIA, is it the
responsibility of the big company or the screen reader manufacturer to fix
it?
I agree with you on your points about Microsoft. I do think that Freedom
Scientific should have been at least somewhat prepared, especially since
they supposedly work with Microsoft.
Okay, then why am I disagreeing? I am not just playing devil's advocate.
Things are probably the way that we think that they are most of the time,
but you cannot know for sure unless you work for one of the big companies or
for a screen reader manufacturer. I work for Google. I obviously cannot
answer directly to the mentioned issues, but I can tell you that Google does
care. Part of the problem is that people seem to, for whatever reason, not
want to even try to communicate. Often, when people say that they are having
accessibility problems, I recommend writing to the Google accessibility list
and/or providing feedback, but they don't. That is, of course, not the
entire problem, but it is part of it. Another part of the problem seems to
be that people think that fixes can happen over night. Just because there is
nothing obvious happening does not mean that the company is not doing
anything.
Going back to the main point, I think that companies that are willing to
undo or modify changes if their users do not like them are more likely to
work with accessibility than companies who make change for the sake of
change.
Nicole
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve Jacobson
via nfbcs
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 3:56 PM
To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Screen Reader Support Models - was NVDA product
question
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%40vi
>>si.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%40wavecab
>le.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%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/ntorcolini%40wavecable.co
m
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list