[nfbcs] most accessible virus/malware protection?

Gary Wunder gwunder at earthlink.net
Fri Jan 16 01:16:15 UTC 2015 

I think it is worth a try. Perhaps our computer science division ought to
start this ball rolling.



-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Goldfield
via nfbcs
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 12:03 PM
To: gwunder at earthlink.net; 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] most accessible virus/malware protection?

Gary,
You raise an interesting question. It would be useful and quite wonderful if
magazines such as Cnet, PC World, etc. evaluated accessibility along with
the other usability-related sections in their reviews. However, in order for
them to adequately perform this task the reviewer would need to be
well-versed with today's group of screen readers and screen enlargers. Can
we expect these reviewers to know JAWS, Window-Eyes and MAGic the way they
know Excel, Word and Powerpoint. I honestly doubt it. However, perhaps we
need to talk about how people like us can assist them in their reviews as
it's users like us who are the experts. Apple has gotten a great deal of
attention in the mainstream press due to their commitment to accessibility.
With Windows products, accessibility becomes the subject of an occasional
"how do the blind use a computer" piece. I'm not sure what the answer is but
I think that engaging in a dialog with some of these publishers would be a
good first step.

David Goldfield,

      Founder and Peer Coordinator,
Philadelphia Computer Users' Group for the Blind and Visually Impaired

Feel free to visit my new Web site
http://www.DavidGoldfield.info/

Gary Wunder wrote:
> Hello, David. I think you have dispensed a few pieces of advice that 
> are really good, and I'm sure that you do more than just preach about the
issue.
> I wonder if it might be a good idea to write to the mainstream 
> computer magazines that do these reviews and suggest that they add 
> accessibility as an important criteria in their evaluations.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David 
> Goldfield via nfbcs
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:33 AM
> To: Nicole Torcolini; NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] most accessible virus/malware protection?
>
> I'd like to weigh in on this interesting and very important discussion.
> Nicole raises a valid point here; an accessible piece of software 
> doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best piece of software. Please 
> don't be offended at what I'm about to say because I consider myself 
> in the same camp but blind people, myself included, are really funny 
> when it comes to which software we use, particularly on our Windows
machines.
> We go with what works with our screen readers and not necessarily with 
> the best choice. Again, when I say blind people I think of myself in 
> this category. Usually, more often than not, this is out of necessity 
> and not out of laziness. I remember in the early 2000's when I was 
> hearing so much about Firefox but those of us using screen readers 
> were forced to use Internet Explorer. Firefox may have been a cool, 
> awesome browser but with blind computer users it had 100% of the 
> market share because, if you're going to use Windows with a screen reader,
IE was the only game in town at that time.
> In the late 1990's I remember what a pleasure it was to use Norton 
> Antivirus on my Windows 98 machine as it was totally accessible, menu 
> bar and all. As Norton began to morph into a Web page type interface, 
> I and probably lots of other blind people discovered AVG, which was 
> amazing when it came to accessibility. Not only did version 7.5 have 
> standard controls and a menu bar but it even had the ability to 
> redefine all of its hotkeys. I didn't actually know if the program was 
> highly rated but I used it because it was highly accessible. Version 8 
> of AVG removed the ability to redefine hotkeys and, while the UI 
> changed, it was still 99.9% accessible. However, as the program became 
> more difficult to use with my screen reader, I and, from what I 
> remember, every other blind person discovered Avast. It was, for the 
> most part, fairly accessible but, at one point, a new version came out 
> which I believe was version 5 and accessibility was gone. While they 
> promised accessibility would return, I refused to keep using 4.7 and 
> promptly removed it. Now, the majority of blind people, myself included,
seem to be gravitating toward Microsoft Security Essentials.
> At one point, the program seemed to be received favorably but it has 
> failed virus tests and has gotten some very bad press. I hesitate to 
> recommend it to most people. I admit I use it but I'm also a very 
> cautious, security-conscious user and, between my script blockers, ad 
> blocker and my own cautiousness I've never been hit with malware while 
> using MSE. The point is that most of us, at least many of us, tend to 
> gravitate toward pieces of software which are screen reader friendly 
> rather than trying to work with the most highly-rated packages which 
> might not work with JAWS, NVDA, Window-Eyes or Supernova.
> This is an issue I've thought about for some time and I think that 
> some proactive work and activism are in order and this is an area I'd 
> like to see the NFB take the lead with. First, we as blind people need 
> to collectively contact the manufacturers of software we want to use 
> and let them know about the problems and accessibility issues which we 
> are experiencing with their software. I try to do this when I can but 
> I admit that, when it comes to security software, I'm just as guilty 
> as anyone else of installing what works with my screen reader and 
> being thankful that I have at least one piece of security software 
> that actually talks to me. I have engaged in my own activism, however, 
> and sometimes it can be effective. With the case of Malwarebytes, I 
> contacted them via their online forum. Online forums are, in my 
> opinion, a very useful tool to politely inform a software vendor about 
> accessibility problems because your message, being in a public forum 
> for everyone to see, sometimes forces them to respond because a 
> company doesn't want to be seen ignoring its users. Also, it not only
educates them about the issues you're having but it makes other people aware
of them as well.
> While I'm sure I wasn't the only reason or even the main reason for 
> this, MalwareBytes, while not perfect, is now reasonably accessible 
> with screen readers. Was my message primarily responsible for this? 
> Probably not, if I'm going to be realistic about it but it may have 
> lit a bit more of a fire under the company to move on the issue.
> I'd also like to see the NFB Assistive Technology Blog or AFB's Access 
> world conduct usability reviews of the top security programs, such as 
> AVG, Avast, MalwareBytes, AdAware, etc. Mainstream magazines conduct 
> annual reviews of security software and rate them on how well they 
> catch viruses, clean up an infected system, the speed of the scans, 
> etc. We need to conduct similar reviews on these packages such as how 
> keyboard friendly are they, accessibility of the settings dialog 
> boxes, etc, providing another way of holding the companies accountable 
> for their product's shortcomings and at the same time informing both 
> them and potential users about products which we should use and support.
> I admit that most of us, myself included, don't have the resources to 
> use an isolated computer with a variety of packages to compose product
reviews.
> However, what we can all do as individuals is to contact vendors of 
> these packages and let them know what our issues are. You can do so 
> privately or via an online forum, which is an approach I prefer to use 
> for reasons I've already stated. One thing that I do is to offer my 
> services to them volunteering to provide beta testing for them for the 
> purpose of providing accessibility-related feedback. I hope this 
> message might be of some help to those who are struggling with using 
> an inaccessible or partially accessible piece of software. As I'm not 
> a person who hands out lots of good-sounding advice and does nothing 
> about it, I would like to offer my services if I can assist any of you in
this endeavor.
>
> Feel free to visit my new Web site
> http://www.DavidGoldfield.info
>
> Feel free to visit my LinkedIn profile
> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-goldfield/12/929/573
>
> Visit my blog
> http://davidgoldfield.wordpress.com
>
> Follow me on Twitter
> http://www.twitter.com/davidgoldfield
>
>
>           David Goldfield,
>          Founder and Peer Coordinator
>
>      Philadelphia Computer Users' Group for the Blind and Visually 
> Impaired To learn more about the users' group, visit 
> http://davidgoldfield.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/updated-faqphiladelphia
> -compu ter-users-group-for-the-blind-and-visually-impaired/
>
> On 1/13/2015 11:06 PM, Nicole Torcolini via nfbcs wrote:
>> Are you also concerned about how good it is? Microsoft Security 
>> Essentials may be accessible, but, from my personal experience, it 
>> does not catch everything. Just my two cents.
>>
>> Nicole
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike 
>> Freeman via nfbcs
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 7:54 AM
>> To: 'David W Bundy'; 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] most accessible virus/malware protection?
>>
>> Microsoft security essentials
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David W 
>> Bundy via nfbcs
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 7:14 AM
>> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
>> Subject: [nfbcs] most accessible virus/malware protection?
>>
>> I have a consumer asking about the most accessible virus/malware 
>> protection available.  Since my expïrience is limited to what I've 
>> actually used, I thought I would throw it out to everyone for
suggestions.
>>
>> David W Bundy
>> West Columbia, SC
>> bundy at pobox.com
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/ntorcolini%40wavec
>> a
>> ble.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/happycatholic1211%
>> 4
>> 0aol.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/gwunder%40earthlink
> .net
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
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/gwunder%40earthlink.net

More information about the NFBCS mailing list