[nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues

Tue Jun 17 19:47:58 UTC 2014

I have to disagree that a standard API would interfere with development.  I think I would agree that it would have an impact on the timeliness of innovation, but I don't think it would have to bring it to a grinding halt.  Let me cite a case for argument.

Where I work, we have a standard for transmitting EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) messages.  All major railroads sat down and analyzed what data would be required for all different transactions they wanted to exchange with the other roads.  After much discussion the roads agreed and published a standard.  They then started writing applications and wrote the code to match the standdards for each transaction type.  All data elements within each transaction met the standard.  Innovation was NOT hindered.

When a new requirement came up, the major players in the roads had to meet to agree on how the changes would affect the standard.  Once the changes were agreed upon, they published the updated standard and then everyone went back to their respective railroads and started making changes.

This process did add a layer of delay to innovation and deployment, but it did not hinder the innovation process completely.  It did add some extra time, but that extra time did allow the other roads to consider their requirements so when the meeting was held, everyone could voice their concerns.  The EDI process has been going on for some years now.  We've even expanded to transmitting data information via XML, but the same thing happens.  There is a standard for transactions and the railroads all observe it.  If a railroad REALLY needs to add new data elements to transactions, there is an agreed method to encode the element so it can be transmitted without affecting the other roads.

I gave that example to say that when changes are being proposed in say Microsoft Land, or Google Land, a convening board could meet.  In addition to that board meeting, an accessibility group could be part of that meeting.  The accessibility group ... made up of leaders from say the NFB, ACB, those who have done research and know the requirements for screen readers, etc ... could be part of the meeting.  They could voice their concerns and request accomodations in the software standard so that these standards could be agreed upon and returned to the players that write the accessibility software.  Perhaps Microsoft and Google wouldn't want to meet together, especially if so doing would reveal new features to the other competitor prematurely.  OK, that wouldn'thave to happen.  But regardless of who met, the standards could be examined to make sure the proposed software met the standard.  And, if it didn't, if the current software standards got in the way of accessibility, Google or Microsoft or IBM or whoever would still agree to put out a standard that could be published that accessibility vendors could program to.  And that could give the accessibility players a chance to ensure that a standard was being proposed that could work with accessibility software.

The bottom line here is that we are kept in the loop and at the very least have time to react rather than a vendor puts out a new technology and we have to scramble to keep up.  That puts a blind person in the dark for at least as long as it takes the accessibility vendors to get cracking and scramble and react to the change.

I really don't see a problem keeping the blind community informed ... once the software vendors know what they're going to do and can clue us in to how the standard is going to change.  I don't see publishing a standard as interfering with them.   But that's my opinion.

Any comments are welcome.

From: k7uij at panix.com
To: mrspock56 at hotmail.com
Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:30:30 -0700

Mike: I agree with you. But I don’t even think a standard API would work. I realize I may be viewed as an extreme pessimist on this one but I suspect that a standard API wouldn’t fly because what we would, in effect, be saying is “You do not have permission to innovate!”. Standards inevitably and of necessity fix software, to some extent, in a mold. Were this to happen, there’d be a great deal of resistance on the part of programmers, developers and web designers. The only alternative would be to have some evaluative body that *all* web pages and software would have to be submitted to and this certainly wouldn’t fly, not least because inaccessibility is one of those things, like the late Justice Potter Stuart said of pornography: “I can’t define it but I know it when I see it!” As all too many people have heard me say: what we need is Mr. data from STNG. Mike Freeman  From: Mike Jolls [mailto:mrspock56 at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 11:12 AM
To: Mike Freeman
Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues Mike

I agree with you.  The cost vs. benefit for a corporation to do these changes (strictly from the money viewpoint) doesn't make sense.  I'll bet there's probably only a handful of disabled people at our company.  So while the company will go purchase Jaws, Magic, extra monitors, etc ... they don't see the benefit of making these accessibility changes since it would only affect 3 or 4 people out of thousands.  That's why I don't think companies are going to spend the money to make all of their software accessible.  They just don't see the cost justification for changes that only affect a handful of people.  And that's why I said have the government fund it, although I get the whole thing about "government involvement, oversight, etc.....).

Now on the other hand, if a standards group defined a standard API that should be programmed to so that any application programming to that specification would guarantee that an application is accessible, maybe that would work.  Then the company could do that without doing a lot of extra work, and that might fly.  But then how do you enforce it?  Well, that's another topic.
  > From: k7uij at panix.com
> To: mrspock56 at hotmail.com; nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:27:18 -0700
> 
> 
> There aren't enough of us to warrant corporations listening to us unless
> there are substantial legal and financial penalties meted out if they do
> not.
> 
> IMO we are truly beginning to experience the real meaning of being a
> minority which we've maintained since our founding.
> 
> Mike Freeman
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jolls via
> nfbcs
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:41 AM
> To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
> 
> I still contend that private corporations would not want to do this. While
> the corporation I work for does (because of law) provide accomodtions for me
> .. accessible software for my workstation ... they DO NOT put much effort in
> making their software accessible. 
> If this was done at the corporate level, there would probably have to be a
> department whose sole purpose was to develop the components that other
> developers would use and call that would make the regular systems
> accessible. But at least with the companyI work for ... they are so
> focussed on "getting the projects done yesterday" and "making that profit
> line" that I don't think they'd do it unless there wer incentives or a law
> that forced the issue, or both. I think the last 36 years that I've worked
> here speaks to what they want to do .. and nothing has been done to make
> their systems accessible. They do what they have to as far as purchasing
> accessible accommodations, but beyond that, you're on your own.
> 
> While I do agree with your philosophy that it would be "another opportunity
> for government mishandling" ... I'm just not sure I see the private sector
> doing this ... at least not wide-spread. That's why I said have an entity
> that is solely focussed on accessibility so that the company doesn't have to
> incur the cost. I suppose another way to do that would be for the
> government to give tax incentives to corporations that make their software
> accessible. Now you have less government involvement, but you're talking
> money to these corporations. If my theory is right, then they'd listen.
> 
> Other comments?
> 
> > From: mbaldwin577 at gmail.com
> > To: mrspock56 at hotmail.com; nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
> > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:18:32 -0500
> > 
> > LOL, another government department. The government can't get much 
> > right now, why would this be any different. It is better to add jobs 
> > to the private sector, not to the government.
> > 
> > Government involvement would best be done with a simple law that makes 
> > it mandatory for software companies over a certain gross sales level 
> > to make their software accessible. Also have guidelines for receiving 
> > an exemption on certain software. Example, it would not be necessary 
> > to make software that truck drivers use in their truck to enter log 
> > data accessible with screen readers.
> > 
> > The big issue would be how to define accessible. 
> > 
> > Michael
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jolls 
> > via nfbcs
> > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 08:28
> > To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
> > 
> > Here are some thoughts about how to make accessibility in computer 
> > software a reality
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I believe we have seen, given the track record of most corporations, 
> > the lack of interest of most corporations in providing accessibility 
> > in their products. It all comes down to the dollar. There are some 
> > exceptions such as Apple, but for the most part I think the business 
> > views the investment of money in making their computer software 
> > accessible as counter-productive to their profit margin. Therefore, 
> > they don't do it. And if they do, they do minimal work so that they 
> > can legally say that they have fulfilled the requirement.
> > 
> > 
> > Since private industry has shown this track record, my thought is that 
> > if we want accessibility in the software we use, such work needs to be 
> > funded through the government.
> > Perhaps a solution would be to have a government agency whose sole 
> > function is to provide programmers that can work on accessibility 
> > issues. These individuals would work for the government, get paid by 
> > the government, but would be loaned out to major corporations (Oracle, 
> > IBM, etc) to work with the product engineers to make the products 
> > accessible. In this way the corporations would not be impacted by the 
> > cost of doing such development to a large degree. There would be some 
> > impact because the accessibility programmer would have impact on the 
> > design of the product, and the product engineer would have to make 
> > changes according to what the accessibility engineer requested. 
> > However, the cost incurred by the corporation would be minimal. There 
> > would of course have to be a standards organization in the government 
> > that would analyze the requirements of such accessibility programming 
> > to define what standards should be in place. Then the accessibility
> programmer would use those standards in their programming.
> > You might also need to have blind and visually impaired testers that 
> > would test the software to make sure it met the standard. Of course, 
> > this function might be automated if the software systems were correctly
> set up.
> > 
> > 
> > I think without such an infrastructure setup, you're simply going to 
> > see more of the same that is currently going on.
> > 
> > 
> > Please comment. if
> > you think my line of reasoning is valid, how do we get this going? 
> > Talk is cheap. How could the blindness advocacy organizations help to 
> > make this a reality?
> > Putting feet on this would help solve the problems. Personally, I'd 
> > love to have a job like this.
> > 
> > 
> > Your comments?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > To: gui-talk at nfbnet.org; blinux-develop at redhat.com; nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:08:09 -0500
> > Subject: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
> > From: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > 
> > Folks,
> > 
> > I have attached a four page paper which I would like to submit to the 
> > Braille Monitor. I have also pasted the note below my signature. 
> > Please let me know about any errors. Thanks.
> > --
> > Title: Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
> > Author: Louis Maher (ljmaher at swbell.net, 713-444-7838)
> > Date: June 12, 2014
> > 
> > In a modern commercial environment, several blindness-related 
> > accessibility issues remain. Generally these issues can be grouped 
> > into lack of access
> > to: graphical user interfaces (GUIs), graphically displayed data, and 
> > mathematically-based books and journals. I will focus primarily on 
> > the effects of not being able to access GUIs.
> > 
> > Bit Locker Encryption
> > 
> > In Microsoft Windows seven, Bit locker encryption is a Microsoft 
> > system for encrypting all the information on a computer's hard disk. 
> > At power-up time, the user enters a personal identification number 
> > (PIN) and then the login proceeds. The PIN dialog screen is 
> > completely inaccessible. While my HumanWare Brailliant Braille 
> > display will beep when the pin dialog opens, if I make a mistake 
> > entering the pin, then I cannot recover from this error. I must power-off
> my machine, by holding down the power button, and try again.
> > Often when a machine is abnormally stopped, it goes into a memory scan 
> > screen or setup screen. All these pre-login screens are inaccessible, 
> > even to Microsoft narrator. For this reason, a blind user cannot turn 
> > on their own machine if they make a Bit Locker PIN entry error. The 
> > only way out is to go find a sighted colleague who can enable the 
> > blind employee to login into their own computer.
> > 
> > The Linux Graphical User Interface (GUI)
> > 
> > Linux allows for computers, built out of many processors, to solve 
> > large problems. For this reason, most of the hard science problems 
> > are addressed using the Linux operating system. A commercially 
> > popular version of Linux is distributed by Red Hat 
> > (http://www.redhat.com/). Currently my company uses Red Hat version 
> > 5.7. Due to the need for an operating system to work well with all 
> > the company's applications, and the need for a company to have a 
> > stable operating system, operating systems, within a company, change 
> > slowly. An employee's desire to use company software, insures that 
> > the employee must use the company's operating system. For this reason,
> the blind employee cannot choose which operating system they wish to use.
> > 
> > Graphical user interfaces allow users to use a wide variety of 
> > applications with ease. The GUI allows most of the parameters in an 
> > application to use defaults. Only a few parameters within an 
> > application need be set. Also context sensitive help allows the user 
> > to rapidly find out how to set those parameters. GUIs also allow a 
> > user to string many processes together into a dataflow so that complex 
> > tasks can be setup rapidly. For these reasons, the GUI has conquered
> computer space.
> > 
> > Character-based (also called command-line) interfaces are widely used 
> > for computer programming and system administration, and have provided 
> > many blind individuals with excellent career opportunities. While the 
> > character-based interface for Linux is wonderfully accessible, the 
> > Linux GUI is not. Based upon work by the now-bankrupt Sun 
> > Corporation, the Orca Linux screen reader is available in open source 
> > packages (https://help.gnome.org/users/orca/stable/). Orca is not 
> > automatically distributed with commercially popular Linux systems, and 
> > employees must go through a long risk-assessment process to have it added
> to their systems.
> > Orca also accesses the Gnome desktop (http://www.gnome.org/)while most 
> > commercial organizations would prefer to use the KDE interface 
> > (http://www.kde.org/). Also since there is no commercial organization 
> > caring for Orca, there is no guarantee that it will work for any one 
> > application. People who work on Orca development, due it out of love 
> > of computer science, and as an effort to improve the world. The 
> > developers work on what interests them, and on what they can find time to
> accomplish.
> > Also, Orca can only give access to programs running on the user's machine.
> > It does not allow users to logon to other remote machines using GUIs.
> > 
> > The Linux Graphical User Interface (GUI) Remote Access Issue
> > 
> > Linux GUI remote access represents another class of accessibility
> problems.
> > As mentioned above, Orca can only give access to programs running on 
> > the user's machine. It does not allow users to logon to other 
> > machines using GUIs. In modern industrial settings, the blind user 
> > will be sitting in front of a Microsoft Windows based machine. The 
> > user can have complete character-based access to Linux through 
> > programs such as SecureCRT 
> > (http://www.vandyke.com/products/securecrt/). However, the blind user 
> > is going to have to access several remote computers, using graphical 
> > user interfaces, to get their work done. While limited 
> > character-based work around exist for some of these applications, in 
> > general, the blind user will have to have their sighted counterparts do
> this part of their job, thus reducing the flexibility of the blind employee.
> > 
> > Java
> > 
> > Java (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/index.html) is a 
> > programming language, supported by Oracle, to make applications 
> > portable on more than one operating system. The blind access Java 
> > applications through the Java Access Bridge (JAB) (for Windows 
> > (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/tech/index-jsp-136191.h
> > tml),
> > and for Linux
> > (http://linux.softpedia.com/progDownload/Java-Access-Bridge-Download-2
> > 4104.h tml). I have found that most Java programs are not very 
> > accessible due to the developer's unawareness of the need to write 
> > accessible code.
> > 
> > Graphically Displayed Data
> > 
> > Often commercial Linux packages generate plots to help the user 
> > analyze the data in their processes. These plots are generated by 
> > GUI's buried deep in the commercial packages. If the plots could be 
> > generated, and sent outside of the commercial application which 
> > generated them, then they could be sent to Braille printers for 
> > plotting. Without GUI access, the blind user cannot generate the plots,
> nor bring the plots to the outside world.
> > 
> > Mathematically Displayed Books and Journals
> > 
> > The news is a little better on the display of mathematically-based
> material.
> > If the blind user can contact the author of a book, and if the author 
> > is willing to share their source files, then the blind user can read the
> book.
> > The best way to get this book would be in Microsoft Word format where 
> > the author would have used the Design Science mathematical equation 
> > editor, MathType (http://www.dessci.com/en/), to write the equations. 
> > MathType makes mathematics in Microsoft word completely accessible. 
> > Another accessible mathematical language is Latex 
> > (http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dwilkins/LaTeXPrimer/).
> > 
> > Mathematics on the web is still not reliable since bugs in the 
> > Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 10 and 11 have kept math from 
> > being displayed. I have heard that the Apple Safari browser can 
> > display math, but an accessible version of the Safari browser is not
> available for the Windows platform.
> > 
> > GUI Solution Issues
> > 
> > It is unclear how to approach the Linux GUI issue. If a blind user 
> > wishes to install Orca on a Linux workstation, the user will have several
> issues.
> > 1. The blind individual will have to have a sighted individual install 
> > the software because the Linux GUI environment is inaccessible out of the
> box.
> > Secondly, to be efficient, the blind user will need a Braille display.
> > Braille drivers are not part of the standard Orca package, and 
> > separate software must be loaded for Braille displays. Thirdly, only 
> > system administrators will be allowed to load software on company
> computers.
> > Lastly, bringing new programs into the environment requires risk 
> > assessments which can add months to introducing new software.
> > 
> > I am fortunate in that my company will purchase any accessibility 
> > system that exists; however experimenting with unknown solutions is 
> > very tedious and slow. Due to the size of commercial organizations, 
> > it can take up to two years to upgrade the operating systems of 
> > computers. Also, if a blind user installs Orca on one machine, the 
> > user has not achieved much, for the user cannot access other remote 
> > GUI-based processors, which contain the programs an employee will 
> > need. Lastly, stand-alone work stations are rapidly disappearing from 
> > our commercial environment. Our company is experimenting with remote 
> > graphic servers (RGS)
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Graphics_Software) which are 
> > centrally-located graphics servers which are used remotely by 
> > windows-based users. Perhaps remote GUI accessibility can be built into
> such systems.
> > 
> > Conclusions
> > 
> > Both government and non-government blind employees are struggling with 
> > accessibility because currently no one is insisting that these systems 
> > be accessible. If the government would follow its own rules, then the 
> > accessible solutions would be available to all.
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Regards
> > Louis Maher
> > Phone 713-444-7838
> > E-mail ljmaher at swbell.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/mrspock56%40hotmail
> > .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/mbaldwin577%40gmail
> > .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/k7uij%40panix.com
>  		 	   		  