[nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues

[John G. Heim]

Who is this John you keep talking about as being optimistic? Not me. 
Certainly, I never said anything about expecting java applets to be 
accessible anytime in the near future.

On 06/19/14 13:36, Steve Jacobson via nfbcs wrote:
> Mike and all,
>
> Java is one of the reasons I am not as optomistic as John is about being able to lay out standards and getting
> things to conform.  I remember being part of a small discussion group about Java back in 1998 at Closing the Gap
> at which there was a lot of excitement about the move to make Java accessible.  Some of us were told by people
> from Sun Micro Systems that all we had to do was to get screen reader developers on board.  We suggested that it
> would be helpful if Sun, who was the driving force behind the evolution of JAVA at the time, would help us by
> underwriting the work to make one of the JAVA-Based office sweets conform with what they were doing with
> accessibility as that would create an incentive for screen reader developers.  There was no interest in doing
> that.  Even now, over fifteen years later, reviews seem mixed regarding the Open Office software, although
> certainly progress has been made.  Oracle may help us out some in time, but it's been fifteen years and I still
> generally assume that if software is JAVA-based that it won't work for me unless it is known that accessibility
> was considered.  FLASH is another problem area.  Adobe has worked to include accessibility and has really made a
> significant effort to document how to make FLASH accessible, but again, there are so many versions of FLASH and
> variables with how they match up with versions of browsers and versions of screen readers that results are
> inconsistent, and there is a lot of FLASH that is used in such a way as to not be accessible.  To add to the
> frustration, we had years of living with a FLASH updater that was not very accessible because of unlabeled
> buttons, pretty easy to correct, although at least at one point, Window-Eyes and JFW didn't read them but NVDA did
> somehow.  Go figure.
>
> I've written here before about the challenges of which I am aware that have to be overcome by some corporations
> to make their web pages accessible.  Those with whom I have spoken say that getting anything that is not pretty
> basic to work correctly with both Window-Eyes and JFW under Internet Explorer and FireFox usually involves some
> specific logic and I'm sure this is true in general.  Now if you start to throw in Chrome and Safari, along with
> Chromevox and VoiceOver and you throw Android into the mix, I think we are facing a fairly challenging future for
> accessibility as it currently exists.  Even look at something as basic as what needs to be conveyed through the
> user interface of Windows virus checkers.  How many have difficult or inaccessible interfaces.  Some that we have
> liked in the past have gone inaccessible, and as far as I have heard, the big players in that arena do not seem to
> care.
>
> I congratulate the work that has apparently achieved success with Intuit and Quickbooks by The Blind Spot, but I
> and others could not get them to do anything about problems with TurboTax software some years back and some of us
> worked to try to make progress there for over five years.  .  They did make changes to their web site, I
> acknowledge that, though.
>
> I was a very happy user of the CoolEdit sound editing program which became Adobe Audition.  While I'm reading
> between the lines on some of this, Adobe decided they needed to be able to handle displaying of information
> themselves because of limitations of Windows and in the process Audition became less accessible.  However, they
> did make an attempt to convey information needed to screen readers by other means, but since there are other audio
> editing programs in use, screen readers didn't really want to put in the time it would have taken to make it all
> work and Adobe did not get a lot of feedback.  When information is conveyed to us other than by what is directly
> displayed, there is the potential for the information we get to be more reliable, but when there are gaps we are
> left without alternatives.  It would have been time-consuming to work through all this, and I believe there are
> some Audition JFW scripts and a Window-
> Eyes app that makes use of some of the information conveyed, but this was not a trivial effort and we're talking
> about significant effort for just one piece of software.
>
> As I have said before, I believe we need to explore two paths.  First, we need to do what you suggested and try to
> figure out whether it might be possible at some point in time to have information on a screen interpreted
> accurately and quickly enough to provide platform-independent ways of accessing software.  Certainly this might
> imply a camera and OCR, but there are shortcuts that might be taken that could make this job somewhat less
> challenging.  Besides looking into the future,, we also need to get an idea from such exploration if it is
> possible at all.  If it is, it is a direction that has the potential of placing less burden on software providers.
> If is seems unlikely to work, we need to know that as soon as we can as well.
>
> The other path that needs to be explored is whether we are doing all that we can to process information from the
> current accessibility infrastructure.  In Windows, we are seeing the off-screen model disappearing for security
> reasons and for innovation.  There are alternatives being provided that give us some of the same information but
> who knows whether there is more we could be given that would help us.  Most of us are not close enough or
> knowledgeable enough to know.  I understand that in this new world we may loose some of our ability to label
> graphics.  This puts more of the burden on software developers.
>
> I am not enough of a visionary to know how all of this could be accomplished, but maybe there are others here who
> are.  However, I think it is we who need to think about all of this and push for work to be done.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Steve Jacobson
>
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:05:00 -0700, Mike Freeman wrote:
>
>> I agree with you totally.
>
>> But I do think things are getting to a point where we might want to again
>> think of some sort of software package to actually interpret what's on a
>> screen with a camera rather than trying to insist that all software be
>> amenable to or have built-in accessibility hooks.
>
>> And while I agree with you on java, I agree with Nicole that the way java is
>> implemented these days, one must be born under the right sign, have the
>> correct rabbit's foot, adhere to the "correct" religious belief and roll the
>> correct value on the dice in order to get it to work. I have found software
>> training materials and the like that rely upon java *extremely* iffy insofar
>> as getting them to work with screen-readers. There are just too many
>> variables such that the way things *appear* on a screen may have very little
>> with what a computer actually detects.
>
>> I realize that many will disagree with me which is why I'm being farily
>> cryptic here but I still suspect that ultimately, we're going to have to
>> establish *exact* standards that will be resisted to the hilt in that they
>> will imply constraints on innovation.
>
>> I fervently hope I'm wrong.
>
>> Mike Freeman
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Steve Jacobson [mailto:steve.jacobson at visi.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:00 PM
>> To: Mike Freeman
>> Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>
>> Mike,
>
>> As you know, I agree with you on many of the points you made, but I think we
>> do see cases where laws are being violated.  For example, JAVA software with
>> no accessibility is pretty solid.  If software is being purchased by the
>> government with no review process whatsoever, it is pretty hard for them to
>> maintain that the law isn't specific enough.  Beyond that, though, I don't
>> think we can afford to decide to do nothing until everything is well
>> defined.  This means, of course, that actions that are taken will have to be
>> selective because not every complaint can be resolved by existing laws.
>
>> I am not entirely sure what you mean by rethinking accessibility, but I
>> believe that we do need to understand the limits of the present
>> accessibility infrastructure better than we do.  It feels to me that screen
>> readers are kept so busy trying to keep up with the next versions of Windows
>> or IOS version for that matter that there isn't time to think of ways to
>> broaden their power in a way that might make more software accessible.
>> That's one example.
>> However, where we have opportunities to push ahead, where a path is fairly
>> clearly defined that allows us to apply some pressure to increase
>> accessibility, we have to do it.  If we don't do anything, we will
>> effectively not be standing still but moving back.
>
>> Best regards,
>
>> Steve Jacobson
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:04:26 -0700, Mike Freeman wrote:
>
>>> Steve:
>
>>> I'm not sure the laws are specific enough. And were they specific
>>> enough, they would be made obsolete all-too-quickly. Moreover, they
>>> don't address the problem of certain constructs being accessible using
>>> one screen-reader but not another. Nor do they address the problem of
>>> increasing consciousness of security. I'm thinking of my agency where
>>> even I wouldn't have countenanced putting remote JAWS on every server I
>>> would have had to administer. To be sure, we have to nip in the bud
>>> contentions of such firms as Kaskersky that accessibility and security are
>> inherently incompatible.
>>> But what if Kaspersky is right? Are we then back to Rammi Rabby's
>>> problem with the Foreign Service?
>
>>> Moreover, Mike Jols' example may or may not be relevant in that he
>>> cited a case where everyone knew what he/she wanted. I maintain that
>>> accessibility or even useability isn't nearly as easily defined. But
>>> I've warn that argument out so I won't belabor the point.
>
>>> And, John, forgive me, it isn't as simple as just enforcing the law if
>>> the law is fundamentally inexact and thus not enforceable.
>
>>> I stick to my guns. If nothing else, I think we're going to have to
>>> rethink the whole accessibility issue over the coming few years.
>
>>> And part of our problem is that people don't put a premium on esoteric
>>> knowledge anymore (just look at GM cars) but appear to value far more
>>> highly playing with complex graphical widgets to narrow down thousands
>>> of choices that have already been mapped out for programmers and such.
>
>>> GRRR!
>
>>> Mike Freeman
>
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve
>>> Jacobson via nfbcs
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:38 AM
>>> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>
>>> Jim,
>
>>> I think we're talking about two different things here.  What you say is
>>> true, and we should not let accessibility problems stop us if we can
>>> manage it with a reader.  However, the bigger question is how long
>>> should we need to use a reader to compensate for particularly
>>> government employers who are knowingly violating the law and are
>>> unwilling to try to comply?  How long should my tax dollars go to pay
>>> for software purchased by the government where the buyer and the seller
>>> know they are violating the law?  In some instances, that is what is
>>> happening.  Of course, there are cases where it isn't as clear cut as
>>> that, but I think we are seeing a pattern of disregard for laws that
>>> are already in place in some cases.
>
>>> Best regards,
>
>>> Steve Jacobson
>
>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:46:00 -0700, Jim Barbour via nfbcs wrote:
>
>>>> 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-13
>>>>>>>> 6191
>>>>>>>> .h
>>>>>>>> tml),
>>>>>>>> and for Linux
>>>>>>>> (http://linux.softpedia.com/progDownload/Java-Access-Bridge-Down
>>>>>>>> load
>>>>>>>> -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%40h
>>>>>>>> otma
>>>>>>>> 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%4
>>>>>>>> 0gma
>>>>>>>> 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.c
>>>>>>> om
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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/carcione%40acces
>>>>>> s.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.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%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/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/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
>

-- 
---
John G. Heim, 608-263-4189, jheim at math.wisc.edu