[nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and legal requirements.

Mon Mar 3 16:29:29 UTC 2014

It's not that simple: we can't even define accessibility. So how can we
expect developers to understand it? Most of the time, we can only define
when something is *not* accessible.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tracy Carcione
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:26 AM
To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and
legal requirements.

I have the impression that accessibility is not on most developers' radar. 
They don't try because they don't even think of it. Either they never have 
the thought that a disabled person might use their website, program, or 
whatever, or they have no idea that a disabled person might access it 
differently than they do.  In their little world, we're all the same.
Tracy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
To: "NFB in Computer Science Mailing List" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards,and 
legal requirements.

> Trying would include acquiring the knowledge and resources.
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Nicole Torcolini wrote:
>
>> Sometimes, developers do try, but they don't have the knowledge  or
>> resources that they need.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of John G. Heim
>> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 5:18 PM
>> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards,and
>> legal requirements.
>>
>> The bulk of the problem with accessibility is lack of effort on the part 
>> of
>> developers. There's a little bit of it being a difficult technical 
>> problem
>> but the vast majority of accessibility problems could be solved fairly
>> easily with a little effort from developers. It's really not that 
>> different
>> from security issues. If you know anything about security, you know that 
>> the
>> vast majority of security issues in applications are the result of
>> carelessness on the part of the developers. It's the same with
>> accessibility. Mostly, its not that its too hard. Mostly it's that they 
>> are
>> not really trying.
>>
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Nicole Torcolini wrote:
>>
>>> Some of the problems that companies face that make it look like they
>>> are not trying are:
>>> 1. Something working with some screen readers but not others 2. Not
>>> having a good way to test using screen readers 3. Screen readers not
>>> being up to speed with the latest trends Number 1 is particularly a
>>> problem if developers do try to test their code, but can only easily
>>> access certain screen readers.
>>> One of the causes of number 2 is the fact that there is often not a
>>> good way to capture what a screen reader says, at least not in a way
>>> that is useable in automated testing.
>>> An example of number 3 is how some older screen readers, such as JAWS,
>>> were made to work with static web pages, and the methods that they use
>>> don't often work well with dynamic web pages that are more like
>> applications.
>>> Although it is not all of the problem, JMHO, a large part of the
>>> problem is that screen reader manufactures haven't changed the screen
>>> readers as the web has changed, or at least not enough.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike
>>> Freeman
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 3:23 PM
>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility,
>>> standards,and legal requirements.
>>>
>>> With respect, I suspect that a goodly number are *not* trying very hard.
>>> However, there *is* what must be a frustrating issue for some of the
>>> companies -- that of designing software or a web site to be accessible
>>> according to the guidelines and then discovering that it is fully
>>> accessible with one screen-reader but not with others. :-)
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole
>>> Torcolini
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 2:42 PM
>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards,
>>> and legal requirements.
>>>
>>> Although I am pretty sure that there are some companies out there that
>>> aren't trying and/or don't care, I think that we need to be sure that
>>> the companies are not trying before going after them.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Jim Barbour
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 10:52 AM
>>> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
>>> Subject: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and
>>> legal requirements.
>>>
>>> <note> I'm starting a new thread about this topic because frankly I
>>> don't know if what I'm about to say applies to new versions of MS
>>> office.  I truly don't know if MS is innovating their user interfaces
>>> or if they're just being lazy, and would like for *that* conversation
>>> to take place on the other thread.
>>> </note>
>>>
>>> I was having a similar discussion about innovation with Tim Elder this
>>> weekend.
>>>
>>> It is my rather strong opinion that allowing innovation does, pretty
>>> much by definition, require that we allow new ideas to grow and
>>> flourish before accessibility can be brought into the picture.
>>>
>>> I would say that this applies to most areas of broad usability
>>> requirements such as Internationalization, localization, varying color
>>> palettes, ergonomic menu placement, etc., etc.
>>>
>>> My favorite example of innovation that would have been stopped cold by
>>> accessibility standards is the whole AJAX/web 2.0 model that Google
>>> introduced with their gmail product in 2004.
>>>
>>> Google could not have released gmail in 2004 if they had been required
>>> to make it accessible.  They couldn't have, even if they'd wanted to.
>>> The technology needed to make AJAX accessible, what we now call the
>>> ARIA roles, hadn't been invented yet.
>>>
>>> What basically had to happen was a rather long set of conversations
>>> amongst web browser developers, screen reader developers, and web app
>>> developers to figure out how to communicate the necessary information
>>> through the necessary channels so that screen readers could get the
>>> right information at the right time.
>>>
>>> Within the general web usability community, AJAX/web 2.0 is pretty
>>> much the big step for web apps becoming truly user friendly web apps,
>>> rather than clunky, text based, app like web pages.
>>>
>>> Therefore, it's pretty easy to argue that AJAX/web 2.0 was a very
>>> necessary usability step for the general user community,  that the
>>> blind were (sometimes still are) hurt by this usability improvement,
>>> and that screen reading technology has to catch up.
>>>
>>> This is pretty much the same dynamic that we've seen over and over 
>>> again.
>>> When DOS become windows 3.0, UNIX started using X-windows and session
>>> managers, phones switched from keypads to touch screens, and probably
>>> a few examples I missed.
>>>
>>> So, where is the point at which a webapp stops being experimental and
>>> starts being an entity that is expected to provide reasonable
>>> accomodations for disabled users?
>>>
>>> Is it when you have to acknowledge license agreement or terms of
>>> service page?  Is it when you are expected to give them a credit card
>>> number?  Is it when the site is made available to the general public,
>>> as apposed to a limited beta? I can argue for and against each of those
>> suggestions.
>>>
>>> I do know that the Department of Justice is wrestling with this
>>> question, along with other questions about how does a web site
>>> provider know for sure that they've made their website accessible.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that however the rules come down, they're going to
>>> seriously hamper webapp providers and in turn give us relief from much
>>> of the inaccessible web content we as blind people have to deal with
>>> on a very regular basis.  I hope we keep both sides of this in mind
>>> when the DOJ developes, releases, and begins enforcing these 
>>> regulations.
>>>
>>> In other words, I'm hoping we can figure out a way to go after Google,
>>> facebook, United airlines, and the US government to get their web
>>> sites more accessible; without also harassing tech startups,
>>> non-profits, and my high cusin who just put up a really cool
>>> visualization tool for how he and his friends listen to music.
>>>
>>> Take Care All,
>>>
>>> JIm
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:26:25PM -0600, Gary Wunder wrote:
>>>> Dear Mike:
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps one of the things we need to address is whether or not making
>>>> things screen reader compatible truly does limit innovation. Is
>>>> screen reader technology so far behind state-of-the-art technology
>>>> that this is the case, or are we talking about the failure to add a
>>>> few lines of code in this new technology that makes it play well with
>>>> the assistive technology we need? I lack the expertise to answer this
>>>> question, but it seems to me to be all important. We go to Congress
>>>> each year with the message that accessibility is easy and doable. I
>>>> have never heard the software companies argue to the contrary. What I
>>>> do often hear from software developers is that it is too costly to go
>>>> back and modify their legacy code but that new development will
>>>> certainly incorporate accessibility. Only recently have I heard the
>>>> idea that demanding accessibility threatens innovation. Can someone
>>>> with some expertise in state-of-the-art coding and state-of-the-art
>>>> screen reader technology set me straight. It seems to me that this
>>>> argument, if true, changes where we need to place our emphasis. If it
>>>> is false, it needs to be revealed as such. If it is true, then we
>>>> need to place more emphasis on bringing the screen readers into the
>>>> second decade of the
>>> twenty-first century.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike
>>>> Freeman
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:00 AM
>>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
>>>>
>>>> Gary:
>>>>
>>>> I confess that I am beginning to think we're running up against
>>>> something we ought to be familiar with, being Federationists, but
>>>> that we don't want to face. That "something" is that we, the blind,
>>>> are a minority. This is something we're going to come up against more
>>>> and more as the general universe seeks bling more than information.
>>>>
>>>> I confess that I'm beginning to suspect that unless and/or until we
>>>> come up with *absolutely* iron-clad legislation that, in effect,
>>>> limits what software vendors are allowed to do to those things
>>>> wherein we can guarantee accessibility -- in effect, limiting
>>>> innovation  -- something which I obviously know won't happen -- we're
>>>> going to be behind the eight ball even with vendors who claim to put
>>>> accessibility
>>> first.
>>>>
>>>> I think more and more we will find ourselves forced to old,
>>>> tried-and-true but much-forgotten and much-maligned strategies -- 
>>>> such as -- gasp -- use of readers.
>>>>
>>>> I believe Deborah Kent-Stein and I talked about this a while back and
>>>> *she* thinks we'll eventually have to come round to a TapTapSee-like
>>>> app that allows us to point a camera at indecipherable screens and
>>>> have someone tell us what's going on. I don't think even that would
>>>> work as corporations would frown on their networks being used for
>>>> such things and might balk at the possibilities of theft of corporate
>>>> secrets
>>> or intellectual property.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Freeman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Gary
>>>> Wunder
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 7:09 AM
>>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
>>>>
>>>> I still respectfully suggest that we put Microsoft on the agenda and
>>>> try to find out why accessibility always seems to be at the bottom of
>>>> their priority list. Did screen reader developers have a look at this
>>>> before it came on the market? Why is it that we were still wrestling
>>>> with problems in Outlook 2007 when Outlook 2010 hit the market? Is
>>>> there any kind of consistency between the statement "computing for
>>>> all" and the kind of release strategy we see from Microsoft?
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
>>>> Campbell
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:08 AM
>>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
>>>>
>>>> Hello Curtis,
>>>>
>>>> I am using Office 13 at home on my laptop running Windows 8. I must
>>>> confess that I did not have  the installation headaches as I
>>>> purchased my system and software from Bestbuy. The store in my area
>>>> has a very helpful geek squad, and I explained that I wanted to put
>>>> the computer through its paces using JAWS and so forth before I 
>>>> purchased
>> it.
>>>> The Best Buy folks took care of all of the installations for me as I
>>>> purchased a year of tech support for my devices.
>>>> I primarily use office 13 for Outlook and Word. I am a fan of
>>>> outlook, so I was very disappointed to see that it often crashes,
>>>> sometimes while I'm reading or writing a message then mysteriously
>>>> restarts. IN Word, I haven't used the return address features since
>>>> I'm creating documents for use at home or at work, and I send 99
>>>> percent of my
>>> correspondences via email.
>>>> However, I've had a lot of frustration accessing documents that are
>>>> protected.
>>>> JAWS will start reading the file and then stop. I believe what
>>>> happens is that Word shuts down and then restarts because I get a
>>>> prompt about recovering files which I can never find.
>>>> Interestingly enough, I ran in to this problem last week when
>>>> accessing some documents for a Newsline seminar.
>>>> I believe there is a way to unprotect files, but I haven't found it 
>>>> yet.
>>>> Curtis, I agree that Office 13 is very much a work in progress, and I
>>>> hope Microsoft does come out with a service pack that will repair
>>>> these bugs which make it almost impossible to use Office reliably.
>>>> At work, I an using Windows 7 and Office 2007,and I haven't had the
>>>> same frustrations.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards.
>>>>
>>>> Liz Campbell
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Curtis
>>>> Chong
>>>> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 11:06 AM
>>>> To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>> Subject: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
>>>>
>>>> Greetings and felicitations:
>>>>
>>>> Early this month, I took the rather bold step of upgrading from
>>>> Microsoft Office 2010 to Microsoft Office 2013. I am running the
>>>> 64-bit version of Windows 7 Professional.
>>>>
>>>> I am interested in hearing from anyone out there who has taken a
>>>> similar journey. Permit me to provide a brief summary of my
>>>> experiences so
>>> far.
>>>>
>>>> To begin with, the upgrade was not at all a trouble-free experience.
>>>> The first thing that Office 2013 wanted me to do was to link to
>>>> either an existing or new Microsoft account. There appears no way to
>>>> avoid this
>>> step.
>>>> Since I had a Microsoft account (which I had never used for years and
>>>> years) I had to spend considerable time trying to get my password
>>>> back. This was only the first problem.
>>>>
>>>> Then, Office wanted to set up Sky Drive on my computer, which I
>>>> allowed at first and have since removed.
>>>>
>>>> After the install was finished (hours of work), I tried starting Word.
>>>> Right away, I received a message (which was not spoken by JAWS for
>>>> Windows) indicating that the program had stopped working. There
>>>> seemed to be no way around this problem. In the end, I had to contact
>>>> Microsoft Support over the telephone so that someone could remote
>>>> into my computer and run some kind of a repair.
>>>>
>>>> While I am now using Microsoft Office 2013 to do real work, I must
>>>> point out that using this software is not without its problems. For
>>>> one thing, there are many situations during which JAWS goes silent
>>>> and during which one simply has to wait for something to happen. For
>>>> another, there are frequent instances when either Word or Outlook
>>>> will crash and then recover--all in complete silence (from a
>>>> nonvisual access
>>> standpoint).
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about the rest of you, but one strategy which I often
>>>> use is to open a master document from Windows Explorer, bringing it
>>>> into Word, then save the document under a different name so that I
>>>> can work on it. On my system right now, there is no way to do this
>>>> anymore. As soon as I hit F12 to invoke the "Save As..." dialog, Word
>>>> will immediately
>>> crash.
>>>> Interestingly, this does not happen on the Office 2013 system I am
>>>> using at work. Go figure.
>>>>
>>>> There are two other problems worth mentioning. First, in Word, the
>>>> return and delivery address edit boxes in the Envelopes dialog are
>>>> not accessible with any screen access program. You simply cannot read
>>>> the text that may (or may not) be in these boxes. Secondly, in
>>>> Outlook 2013, the Signature dialog's edit box is just as inaccessible
>>>> to a nonvisual user as the Envelopes edit boxes in Word.
>>>>
>>>> These days, for new users, it is just about impossible to acquire
>>>> Office 2010. This is most unfortunate inasmuch as I consider Office
>>>> 2013 to be very much a work in progress. I very much am looking
>>>> forward to a service pack on this from Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> Cordially,
>>>>
>>>> Curtis Chong
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/batescampbell%40ch
>>>> a
>>>> rter.n
>>>> et
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> nfbcs:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/gwunder%40earthlin
>>>> k
>>>> .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/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/gwunder%40earthlin
>>>> k
>>>> .net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> nfbcs:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nfbcs:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/ntorcolini%40waveca
>>> ble.co
>>> m
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nfbcs:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nfbcs:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/ntorcolini%40waveca
>>> ble.co
>>> m
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nfbcs:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.wisc.e
>>> du
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfbcs mailing list
>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> nfbcs:
>>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/ntorcolini%40wavecable.co
>> m
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfbcs mailing list
>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> nfbcs:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.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/carcione%40access.net
> 

_______________________________________________
nfbcs mailing list
nfbcs at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com