[nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues

[Tracy Carcione]

Jim, I meant the problems I've had with training only as an example of how 
hard it can be for a blind employee to get something made accessible.  We've 
been all over inaccessible training more than once, if memory serves.

Mike J, Bookshare is getting a lot of books from publishers, which I've 
found really helpful.
I liked your railroad standards example, though I wonder what it would take 
to get us a place at the table.  I think getting existing federal laws 
enforced would be a good start.
Tracy
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Barbour via nfbcs" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
To: "Tracy Carcione" <carcione at access.net>; "NFB in Computer Science Mailing 
List" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues


> Depending on what the training is, or how often you have to do it, one way 
> to deal with this problem is just use a reader.
>
> Not everything needs to be independently done by you, just needs to be 
> done by you :-)
>
> Jim
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jun 18, 2014, at 4:39 AM, Tracy Carcione via nfbcs <nfbcs at nfbnet.org> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> So Nicole, it's up to us blind employees to make a stink until things get 
>> accessible? I've been complaining for several years about my company's 
>> inaccessible training.  I've sent emails about it to everyone I can think 
>> of who might do something.  I've spoken up in meetings, and discussed it 
>> with my boss, who's discussed it with the responsible department, in this 
>> case, the morons in Human Resources.  And my efforts have had zero 
>> effect.  That only thing I see left to do is file a lawsuit, and, as Gary 
>> has elloquently pointed out, that can cause serious problems for me, and 
>> could lose me my job, or make my work relationships very uncomfortable.
>> So, if you have a way to make a company pay more than lip service to 
>> accessibility, or a way for the blind employee to find the person who can 
>> actually make a difference, well, say on.
>> Tracy
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicole Torcolini via nfbcs" 
>> <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
>> To: "'Mike Jolls'" <mrspock56 at hotmail.com>; "'NFB in Computer Science 
>> Mailing List'" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:17 AM
>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>
>>
>>> Kind of coming into this thread a little late, but I still would like to 
>>> add
>>> my two cents about both the original article and some of the responses.
>>>
>>> I thought that the original article was mostly well written.
>>> In regards to the Bit 9 problem, I am not sure if this is what
>>> causes it to be inaccessible, but I know that most other operations that
>>> take place during/before start up, such as scan disk, are inaccessible
>>> because there is no operating system yet, which is needed for the screen
>>> reader to function. So this is not something that the screen reader
>>> manufacturers could easily fix on their own.
>>> On a slightly different note, the Bit 9 problem also points out the
>>> fact that security and accessibility often seem to be at odds with each
>>> other, although they don't have to be. For some reason, people tend to
>>> gravitate toward the less accessible forms of security, such as 
>>> captchas.
>>> Java is supposed to make applications portable on more than one
>>> operating system, but, JMHO, if it requires something like Java Access
>>> Bridge in order to be accessible, that does not count. If the SWT 
>>> library is
>>> used, JAB is not necessary, but the SWT library is not distributed with 
>>> the
>>> Java installation, and it has certain problems that make it undesirable 
>>> for
>>> certain uses. Going back to the JAB itself, one of the reasons that I 
>>> don't
>>> consider having to use it as being valid accessibility is that it can be
>>> hard to use. Yes, it comes with Java now, but the planets have to be
>>> perfectly aligned for it to work right. If I remember correctly, the 
>>> path
>>> variable has to be set correctly. If you for some reason need to have a 
>>> 32
>>> bit version of Java on a 64 bit machine, you have to install the 64 bit 
>>> Java
>>> as well as the 32 bit Java because the 32 bit Java will not cause the 
>>> JAB to
>>> be activated. Finally, it is turned off by default. If it does not have 
>>> a
>>> negative effect on anything, then why is it disabled by default?
>>>
>>> Perhaps some corporations don't want to make their software
>>> accessible, but I think that people are over looking one possibility. It 
>>> is
>>> possible that a company, for whatever reason, made inaccessible software 
>>> in
>>> the past and is currently working on making it accessible; it's just 
>>> that
>>> there have not been any noticeable changes yet. Adding in accessibility 
>>> does
>>> not happen over night, and it can be very hard to add accessibility to 
>>> an
>>> existing piece of software without breaking it, especially if the core
>>> functionality of that software is inaccessible by nature.
>>>
>>> For several reasons, I think that having the government fund
>>> accessibility work is a bad idea. Do you really think that the 
>>> government
>>> has enough money to do that? There is already a major struggle in some
>>> states to keep funding for various services for the blind, so I highly 
>>> doubt
>>> that the government is about to throw money at this problem, especially
>>> since there is not a definitive solution. Even if there was such a 
>>> program
>>> by the government, it would not work. Companies don't want external 
>>> people
>>> working on their code, even if it was under NDA. In addition, most 
>>> companies
>>> have way too much code for someone from the outside to come in and learn
>>> enough to make affective changes. And then how long would this person 
>>> stay?
>>> Forever? What testing would this person perform? Often, for testing to 
>>> be
>>> useful to a company, it needs to be done using the testing framework of 
>>> the
>>> company, so that it can be processed and documented in a meaningful way.
>>> Perhaps having an API for doing certain things might help, but,
>>> unless you strictly say, "You can use this API and only this API", it's 
>>> not
>>> going to help. You can have an API, but people are always going to want 
>>> more
>>> and better and to be free of restrictions, so they will go outside of 
>>> the
>>> API and build their own stuff, sometimes completely from scratch, 
>>> sometimes
>>> using pieces of the API in the right way, sometimes using pieces of the 
>>> API
>>> in the wrong way.
>>> So how do you make a company make accessible software? To some
>>> extent, you can use requirements. Saying that inaccessible software 
>>> can't be
>>> used in schools seemed to have worked kind of well. Perhaps more laws 
>>> like
>>> this, such as inaccessible software cannot be used in the workplace, 
>>> would
>>> help. Also, in addition to accessible, software needs to be usable. If I
>>> spend two hours trying to do something and finally accomplish it, but 
>>> not
>>> without pulling half my hair out in frustration, does that still count 
>>> as
>>> being accessible?
>>> Pressure to make software accessible also needs to come from within.
>>> Major companies need to have blind employees. These employees need to be
>>> willing to make a stink about it when the internal products and the 
>>> products
>>> that are being released are not accessible. Blind employees also need to
>>> know who to talk to in order to get things changed. Sometimes, finding 
>>> the
>>> right person and going up the chain of command can have major effects. I
>>> have also found that doing demonstrations for sighted peers can be a 
>>> real
>>> eye opener (no pun intended). Employees need to push for accessibility 
>>> to be
>>> included in the products, and they need to find sighted employees who 
>>> are
>>> willing to help them. Companies need to teach their employees about
>>> accessibility, especially that accessibility has to be built in from the
>>> ground up. Often things are inaccessible because the accessibility was
>>> retrofitted. Accessibility needs to be incorporated into product 
>>> testing.
>>> Sometimes, this can be automated, but sometimes it has to be done 
>>> manually,
>>> which means that someone who actually knows how to work with assistive
>>> technology needs to do the testing. If this is not possible, then the 
>>> tester
>>> needs to be given very specific instructions and guidelines. Companies 
>>> need
>>> to have a central resource for accessibility as well as a department 
>>> that
>>> works on accessibility, particularly if that company has accessibility
>>> features in their software, such as self voicing. If possible, each 
>>> product
>>> area in a company needs to have a person responsible for working on
>>> accessibility.
>>>
>>> Nicole
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jolls 
>>> via
>>> nfbcs
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:48 PM
>>> To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>>
>>> 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%40hotma
>>>> > il
>>>> > .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%40gma
>>>> > il
>>>> > .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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/carcione%40access.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/jbar%40barcore.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/carcione%40access.net
>