Thats a hard question.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
What is your opinion of access in general?
Mine is that the program in question is fully usable, with readable documentation at minimal in a structured accessible pdf or failing that html with the right headings.
Daisy would be nice but for all practical purposes a standard html document is what I'd go for any day or text, word, etc whatever.
The program must have keyboard shortcuts, settings that are easy to understand, menus or heck I guess ribbons that are easy to understand though I am a menu kind a guy.
If its a universal app, its web interface should be easy to navigate, with buttons which are labeled and alt text in the right places.
Self voicing is an option but having the ability to run something like tolque and run sapi and screen reader support would be nice.
Having actual reader access with an addon like nvda or jaws I guess would be nice, but if it uses standard controls then its going to work.
No customised styles, fonts or extras would be nice but again if its labeled then fine.
If it had the same interface no matter what system or configuration is also a pluss.
I don't need a dumbed down interface for the blind, unless there is a simple and advanced mode for various things and I can easily switch.
Most of this is simple stuff.
Look at ccleaner for example.
Button labeling and checkboxes were the simple thing, settings with labeled controls deciding what you chose, shortcut keys without conflicts.
An easy to understand system.
Would I have liked a dumbed down interface which had spaciffic things for the blind, probably not.
With accessibility you really want something to be accessible or rather usable to every user.
That means you shouldn't need nvda addons or jaws scripts to work with it.
You shouldn't need spaciffic libraries to work with it and screen reader/sapi support.
You shouldn't need dumbed down interfaces.
As long as its designed right then it should all just work.
Of course a lot of stuff uses coding engines and generators and those may or may not do everything or put things in you are not aware of.
This aint a perfect world though, so as long as its got standard controles and its all labeled and easy to configure and use thats about what I'd expect.
Customised shortcuts and sound notifications especially if there is a custom soundscheme and the ability to add extra sound schemes where appropriate is also good.
Another thing is that once you have an interface, try to keep it the same or at least keep every new interface if it needs extras the same standard as the old one.
CCleaner was originally fully accessible.
Then it got changed, then it got put back.
There are a few plusses.
Its not a given but right now anything universal will use a web component, so if the web bits work generally the rest will work enough to be used.
If its chromeum based there is a chance it will work to.
Of course you will want to adjust things but still.
I have not seen any programs actually holding your hand as such lately.
On 6/01/2021 10:57 am, Jaffar Sidek wrote:
Hi. I think, really, that the question that should be asked is:
to what point does the need for accessibility borders onto the need to be spoilt and spoon fed, isn't it? Cheers!
On 6/1/2021 2:37 am, tim wrote:
So you mean like how Microsoft is doing with VS code?
Guess the program-l list has to give up its Microsoft developers on the list to. After all Microsoft only let them join to see how the blind use there product.
On 1/4/2021 3:49 PM, Gene wrote:
It isn't our own language. Some sighted people use the keyboard. However, in this era, when everything is defined as a right, requiring manufacturers to produce instructions specifically for blind people is not something I would advocate. Blind people shouldn't expect to have everything done for such a small group. You might be able to argue that manuals should have versions written for blind people since in the sighted versions, they use pictures and diagrams and icons, but beyond a certain point, blind people need to take responsibility for what they can do and know.
I have no objection to tutorials being produced to teach blind people how to use programs using terminology and descriptions generally used by blind people, but at what point does this right end?
Should a designer of shareware or freeware be required to have instructions written for blind people if his program is used by a lot of blind people? Are you advocating that every help topic regarding Windows and Microsoft Office have a blindness version?
If a specialized piece of software has one-hundred blind users in America, should the developer be required to have instructions using the keyboard for such a small user base even if a lot more sighted people use it?
-----Original Message----- From: Orlando Enrique Fiol via groups.io
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2021 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] Admin's Notes Re List Conduct, Please Read
At 12:45 PM 1/4/2021, Brian Vogel wrote:
Windows is completely translated into dozens of
The reason I say that is you will, eventually, be given instructionsby a kindly but clueless sighted person who says, "Click on the
paperclip button," because that's what they see and they know,
implicitly, what it does.Â It's really handy to have had someone
who's instructing you give you the sighted/announced pairs just
because you're likely to be confronted with only the former at some point.
But I do agree that, particularly if the audience is a blind one, I'd
likely reverse the ordering of the twins, giving the announced name
(or something awfully close to it, I never remember them all,
perfectly) first with the icon description afterward.
languages. When Chinese or Japanese speakers do
tech support for their compatriots, they don't
use English terms for Windows elements because
those elements have all been translated into
their languages. While Hindi or Hebrew speakers
understand that they must know English in order
to talk about Windows with non-Indians or
Israelis, they aren't burdened with the task of
learning English just to use Windows.
This is a good analogy because we as blind people
have allowed ourselves be bamboozled out of
rights that all non-English speakers have. Every
software manufacturer knows that if they don't
produce translated versions, they won't sell
product to non-English speakers. Yet, no software
manufacture--large or small--has been made to
feel similar pressure about producing (for lack
of a better word) blind versions or translations.
This is because non-English speakers petition
software manufacturers to produce translated
versions. Those who know English even offer to do
these translations for free. Whereas, we have
people among us insisting that our language is
provincial, inferior and the primary reason we
keep getting "left behind". Sighted Spanish and Portuguese speakers
don't get "left behind" for being unable to use
Windows in English. Microsoft has never
arrogantly maintained that they must learn
English in order to use Windows because that
position would constitute economic suicide. Only
us blind people have been ingrained with such
self-loathing that we would ridiculously insist,
when communicating with each other, to use
exclusively sighted terms such as points, clicks
and icons, when we have a perfectly functional
keyboard-oriented language of our own.
Orlando Enrique Fiol