[nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues

[John G. Heim]

I am not sure I'd describe myself as optimistic.  I don't believe in 
giving up, that's all.

So you may be referring to my tendency to tilt at windmills butI think 
you are probably referring to my assertion that most accessibility 
problems are fairly easily solved and that you can get really, really 
far with accessibility with what amounts to as a minimal effort. I don't 
know how anyone can dispute these assertions. Don't we all use the web 
dozens and dozens of times every single day? I mean seriously, the 
University of Wisconsin campus lost internet connectivity for a couple 
of hours Wednesday morning and I realized the only work I could do was 
on stuff I already knew how to do. I'll bet I google for info on how to 
call a perl module or what the valid values are for a configuration 
parameter are about 20 times a day. I just got done shopping the amazon 
and newegg sites for X10 controllers. The accessibility problems I run 
into are things line poor linearization, unlabeled graphics, and 
captchas.  I would estimate that half of my accessibility problems would 
be fixed with a simple "Jump to content" link and/or reasonable use of 
headings.

I am not saying flash and java applets are easy to make accessible. 
Heck, I don't even know anything about that. But I don't care because, 
first of all, the vast majority of that stuff is fluff I don't want 
anyway and secondly, I tend to stay away from web sites that use that 
stuff because they are generally poorly designed. There is a 
correllation between how accessible a site is and how good it's 
information is because the developer put time into the content instead 
of fluff.

A few years ago, there was an IBM ad where the web designer was showing 
his boss the company's new web site. The web designer guy was showing 
off the new, rotating, flaming logo at the top of the screen. And the 
boss says, "You know what would be really cool is if we could tie this 
into our inventory." Okay, that was just an ad but it's the way things 
really work. Don't put stuff in flash and/or a java applet. That's just 
wasting everybody's time. Looks are nice but functionality is what 
really matters.

This only gets more true (more important) as technology advances. There 
will always be underpowered devices because we are always going to want 
to have a smaller package for use in ever more remote areas. Right now, 
the minimum standard is an IPhone with a 4G connection. If you write a 
web app that doesn't work on an IPhone, you've screwed up. Twenty years 
from now we'll all have computers implatned behind our ears or 
something. And maybe they'll have 1024 cores and a 96G network 
connection. But if that's the case, then your office computer will have 
4096 cores and a 4Tb connection.

Yeah, yeah, I know there are exceptions to everythning I've said. But 
just about all of it is based on a very, very basic principle in 
engineering, not just computer programming. Keep it simple, stupid. If 
you're going to dispute my basic point here, you've got to deny like 
4,000 years of engineering wisdom.

On 06/20/14 08:42, Steve Jacobson via nfbcs wrote:
> John,
>
> I always thought of you as being an optimistic guy.  <smile>  I was not trying to hold you responsible for Java
> applets, though.  I don't think we have any choice but to try to keep doing what we are doing to make gains in
> accessibility, but I have seen so much struggling by entities who want to make things accessible that I think we
> have to try to look further down the road.  No offense was intended.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Steve Jacobson
>
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:43:37 -0500, John G. Heim wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>>> 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
>
>>> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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