On 4/1/23, Luke Robinett <lukelistservs@...> wrote:

Last night I was working with some audio software and when the UI appeared,
I had that all too familiar experience to us screen reader users – literally
no response whatsoever from keyboard input and a UI that is completely
unrecognizable to NVDA. I performed OCR and what I found was this was
basically a very typical user interface with a file menu, view menu, a side
bar with some collapsible options and a workspace area where most of the
action takes place in the program. This isn’t anything crazy, and I bet
there’s a way to make a screen reader understand this, I thought.
Having just learned that the latest version of chat GPT can process images
and comprehend them in a way not previously possible, something occurred to
me – we shouldn’t still have to be dealing with this level of
inaccessibility in 2023. I am positive that we now have the technology to
point a n AI-equipped screen reader at a UI screen like this and have it
automatically recognize The interface and create an accessible model for
it, much like how NVDA does with webpages today. I hope this can become a
reality sooner than later. I think the first screen reader developer to
utilize these AI advancements to make their products better is going to have
a huge leg up.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Luke Robinett" <lukelistservs@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2023 7:45 PM
Subject: [nvda] I feel like inaccessible UIs just shouldn’t be a thing now…


Last night I was working with some audio software and when the UI appeared, I had that all too familiar experience to us screen reader users – literally no response whatsoever from keyboard input and a UI that is completely unrecognizable to NVDA. I performed OCR and what I found was this was basically a very typical user interface with a file menu, view menu, a side bar with some collapsible options and a workspace area where most of the action takes place in the program. This isn’t anything crazy, and I bet there’s a way to make a screen reader understand this, I thought.
Having just learned that the latest version of chat GPT can process images and comprehend them in a way not previously possible, something occurred to me – we shouldn’t still have to be dealing with this level of inaccessibility in 2023. I am positive that we now have the technology to point a n AI-equipped screen reader at a UI screen like this and have it automatically recognize The interface and create an accessible model for it, much like how NVDA does with webpages today. I hope this can become a reality sooner than later. I think the first screen reader developer to utilize these AI advancements to make their products better is going to have a huge leg up.

-----Original Message-----
From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brian's Mail list account via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 8:56 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] I feel like inaccessible UIs just shouldn’t be a thing now…

I agree about your first statement, but disagree it should be screenreaders that do the job. As you say, Access is hardly a new concept, yet for whatever reason there are competent programmers out there who are so clueless or don't give a hoot that they design these interfaces with no accessibility in them at all.
All companies should make the accessibility of software a mandatory thing.
As much software is not free if you really want the good stuff, our money should be as good as anyone elses is, and if the edict of access was adopted at the start then writing the software is hardly going to cost more.

So come on world get your act together and fix things.
Brian

--
bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.(Virgin media)
Please address personal E-mail to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Luke Robinett" <lukelistservs@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2023 7:45 PM
Subject: [nvda] I feel like inaccessible UIs just shouldn’t be a thing now…


Last night I was working with some audio software and when the UI appeared, I had that all too familiar experience to us screen reader users – literally no response whatsoever from keyboard input and a UI that is completely unrecognizable to NVDA. I performed OCR and what I found was this was basically a very typical user interface with a file menu, view menu, a side bar with some collapsible options and a workspace area where most of the action takes place in the program. This isn’t anything crazy, and I bet there’s a way to make a screen reader understand this, I thought.
Having just learned that the latest version of chat GPT can process images and comprehend them in a way not previously possible, something occurred to me – we shouldn’t still have to be dealing with this level of inaccessibility in 2023. I am positive that we now have the technology to point a n AI-equipped screen reader at a UI screen like this and have it automatically recognize The interface and create an accessible model for it, much like how NVDA does with webpages today. I hope this can become a reality sooner than later. I think the first screen reader developer to utilize these AI advancements to make their products better is going to have a huge leg up.

From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brian Vogel via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 3:49 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] I feel like inaccessible UIs just shouldn’t be a thing now…

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 02:52 PM, mike mcglashon wrote:

It is, problem is that we just do not have enough of it for them to give a damn.

-
Thank you for saying something I have been wanting to say for ages.  Anyone, on any of the blind-centric technology groups, who believes that "I'm paying for accessibility" is absolutely, positively fooling themselves.

The costs involved in accessibility, even that which is baked in from the outset, are far, far greater than the amount of money that any software maker could ever make back from the target user demographic.  That needs to be understood, and acknowledged.  Accessibility is very heavily subsidized by those who will never, ever use it through the prices they pay, though that's pennies on the dollar (if that) given the huge numbers involved.  David Chittenden wrote what follows, and he is blind and given his research background is in a position to know:
"Ok, the true and actual numbers, as I fully researched them, across many different country statistics databases, official published sources of very high credibility (while I was preparing my PhD research proposal) follows:
The total population which is legally blind (visual acuity of 6/60 (20/200 US measurements) after correction, in the better eye; or with an entire field of 10 degrees (tunnel vision) is 0.4% to 0.55% depending on the level of development in the particular country."

Think about that.  0.4% to 0.55% of the population.  That is a tiny minority.  And given how tiny a minority the amount of influence it has is outsized compared to its numbers.  But make no mistake, the blind community is not now, and never will be, the one that primarily finances what needs to be done to make something accessible.  It's only through masterstrokes of lobbying and PR from your own community's activists, over a time period of decades, that have raised accessibility to an expectation.  And companies (e.g. Microsoft & Google) who are at the forefront of accessibility are not doing it because it makes them any money.  It loses them money.  But they also know that if, at this point in time, they were to suddenly say, "screw it, we're not worrying about accessibility," the costs in public perception would be tremendous, and that matters.  That wasn't true when I started in the computer business in the 1980s, where accessibility was not even an afterthought.

There must be a clear-eyed understanding of how semi-universal expectations of accessibility have come into place as well as who's actually paying for the work needed.  And that seems to be very sadly lacking among those who should understand it best.  Suffice it to say, you're not getting what you're paying for, you're getting what others are heavily subsidizing.  (I've already said, many times, that I think this is appropriate, too.  But this is the situation.  You're not paying.)
--

Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621; Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit

It is much easier to be critical than to be correct.

       ~ Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881

From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jason White via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 6:56 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] I feel like inaccessible UIs just shouldn’t be a thing now…

 

On the other hand, public-sector contracts are lucrative, and satisfying accessibility standards is often a condition of selling hardware or software to government.

Thanks to the effective advocacy that Brian mentioned, we have EN 301 549 in the European Union (backed by an E.U. directive mandating accessibility of public-sector Web sites and mobile applications), and section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act in the United States, requiring accessibility as a condition of developing or procuring technologies for the federal public sector.

If large corporations were to lose significant public-sector contracts for lack of accessibility, they would definitely notice it financially. There are other relevant regulations, of course, but I think the government procurement requirements are the ones that have particularly large revenue consequences for the corporate hardware/software industry.

Consider these and other regulations as supporting the efforts of corporate accessibility specialists (who are generally in the field for the right motives) by dissuading less sympathetic elements within those companies from disregarding or deprioritizing accessibility on grounds of cost or otherwise.

 

On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 02:52 PM, mike mcglashon wrote:

It is, problem is that we just do not have enough of it for them to give a damn.

-
Thank you for saying something I have been wanting to say for ages.  Anyone, on any of the blind-centric technology groups, who believes that "I'm paying for accessibility" is absolutely, positively fooling themselves.

The costs involved in accessibility, even that which is baked in from the outset, are far, far greater than the amount of money that any software maker could ever make back from the target user demographic.  That needs to be understood, and acknowledged.  Accessibility is very heavily subsidized by those who will never, ever use it through the prices they pay, though that's pennies on the dollar (if that) given the huge numbers involved.  David Chittenden wrote what follows, and he is blind and given his research background is in a position to know:
"Ok, the true and actual numbers, as I fully researched them, across many different country statistics databases, official published sources of very high credibility (while I was preparing my PhD research proposal) follows:
The total population which is legally blind (visual acuity of 6/60 (20/200 US measurements) after correction, in the better eye; or with an entire field of 10 degrees (tunnel vision) is 0.4% to 0.55% depending on the level of development in the particular country."

Think about that.  0.4% to 0.55% of the population.  That is a tiny minority.  And given how tiny a minority the amount of influence it has is outsized compared to its numbers.  But make no mistake, the blind community is not now, and never will be, the one that primarily finances what needs to be done to make something accessible.  It's only through masterstrokes of lobbying and PR from your own community's activists, over a time period of decades, that have raised accessibility to an expectation.  And companies (e.g. Microsoft & Google) who are at the forefront of accessibility are not doing it because it makes them any money.  It loses them money.  But they also know that if, at this point in time, they were to suddenly say, "screw it, we're not worrying about accessibility," the costs in public perception would be tremendous, and that matters.  That wasn't true when I started in the computer business in the 1980s, where accessibility was not even an afterthought.

There must be a clear-eyed understanding of how semi-universal expectations of accessibility have come into place as well as who's actually paying for the work needed.  And that seems to be very sadly lacking among those who should understand it best.  Suffice it to say, you're not getting what you're paying for, you're getting what others are heavily subsidizing.  (I've already said, many times, that I think this is appropriate, too.  But this is the situation.  You're not paying.)
--

Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621; Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit

It is much easier to be critical than to be correct.

       ~ Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881

From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Supanut Leepaisomboon
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 7:54 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] I feel like inaccessible UIs just shouldn’t be a thing now…

 

Just imposing laws requiring accessibility in software might not be enough in my opinion since companies would attempt to find and take advantage of loopholes within the laws. Public awareness campaigns should be conducted alongside the imposition of new legal requirements for accessibility.
But ultimately, I think the concept of diversity and inclusion needs to be taught in schools at all levels, from elementary school up to high school and beyond, and the concept of accessible programming designs should be taught in all programming classes. This way we could hopefully create a new generation of managers, directors, CEOs and software developers that would actually care about accessibility.

Hi,

I wouldn't call it rhetoric in the sense of just saying things- discussing diversity and inclusion on a list ultimately dedicated to diversity and inclusion through technical and social means is perfectly okay (I think). Rhetoric is discovering effective and ethical processes and means of persuasion and provides foundation for education for parts of the world.

As for advocacy and costs for implementing accessibility, as I've been saying for years and as folks have said it before, change starts at the level of human mind. While we have efforts to make things more accessible, what really changes the game (besides money) is willingness by people in influential positions to say, "okay, let's do this not just to receive grant money or for profit, but because we do genuinely care about a population that lacked representation for thousands of years". This acknowledges the historical stigma and assumptions about people with disabilities, efforts to correct the wrongs, and recognition that representation and universal design matters. But then again, as I realized recently, the term "accessibility" can mean different things to people, just as the term "screen reader" is understood differently depending on who you ask and how it is explained and demonstrated (I mainly look at how people working in businesses, nonprofits, schools, and other organizations talk about accessibility internally and externally; in case of NV Access and NVDA community, accessibility means equal access to technology, which already puts possibilities and constraints on display to be examined and critiqued).

Cheers,

Joseph

What does equal access to technology mean?  You can't have equal access because there are inherent limitations in blindness. 

The slogan may be a good one to use in discussion with legislators or as a political platform, discussing the question beyond that in such cases may be defeating and too complex for the context, but among blind people, I think it should be discussed and not just accepted.

Gene

On 4/3/2023 8:16 AM, Joseph Lee wrote:

Hi,

I wouldn't call it rhetoric in the sense of just saying things- discussing diversity and inclusion on a list ultimately dedicated to diversity and inclusion through technical and social means is perfectly okay (I think). Rhetoric is discovering effective and ethical processes and means of persuasion and provides foundation for education for parts of the world.

As for advocacy and costs for implementing accessibility, as I've been saying for years and as folks have said it before, change starts at the level of human mind. While we have efforts to make things more accessible, what really changes the game (besides money) is willingness by people in influential positions to say, "okay, let's do this not just to receive grant money or for profit, but because we do genuinely care about a population that lacked representation for thousands of years". This acknowledges the historical stigma and assumptions about people with disabilities, efforts to correct the wrongs, and recognition that representation and universal design matters. But then again, as I realized recently, the term "accessibility" can mean different things to people, just as the term "screen reader" is understood differently depending on who you ask and how it is explained and demonstrated (I mainly look at how people working in businesses, nonprofits, schools, and other organizations talk about accessibility internally and externally; in case of NV Access and NVDA community, accessibility means equal access to technology, which already puts possibilities and constraints on display to be examined and critiqued).

Cheers,

Joseph

If it isn't accepted by businesses or schools how do you think we as the blind can move on in the public place?  I'm sure this list is read by some sighted as well as the blind.

Dave

On 4/3/2023 9:44 AM, Gene wrote:

What does equal access to technology mean?  You can't have equal access because there are inherent limitations in blindness. 

The slogan may be a good one to use in discussion with legislators or as a political platform, discussing the question beyond that in such cases may be defeating and too complex for the context, but among blind people, I think it should be discussed and not just accepted.

Gene

On 4/3/2023 8:16 AM, Joseph Lee wrote:

Hi,

I wouldn't call it rhetoric in the sense of just saying things- discussing diversity and inclusion on a list ultimately dedicated to diversity and inclusion through technical and social means is perfectly okay (I think). Rhetoric is discovering effective and ethical processes and means of persuasion and provides foundation for education for parts of the world.

As for advocacy and costs for implementing accessibility, as I've been saying for years and as folks have said it before, change starts at the level of human mind. While we have efforts to make things more accessible, what really changes the game (besides money) is willingness by people in influential positions to say, "okay, let's do this not just to receive grant money or for profit, but because we do genuinely care about a population that lacked representation for thousands of years". This acknowledges the historical stigma and assumptions about people with disabilities, efforts to correct the wrongs, and recognition that representation and universal design matters. But then again, as I realized recently, the term "accessibility" can mean different things to people, just as the term "screen reader" is understood differently depending on who you ask and how it is explained and demonstrated (I mainly look at how people working in businesses, nonprofits, schools, and other organizations talk about accessibility internally and externally; in case of NV Access and NVDA community, accessibility means equal access to technology, which already puts possibilities and constraints on display to be examined and critiqued).

Cheers,

Joseph

On 4/5/23, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 09:38 AM, Dave Grossoehme wrote:

If it isn't accepted by businesses or schools how do you think we as the
blind can move on in the public place?  I'm sure this list is read by
some
sighted as well as the blind.

-
By actually speaking the language of clear-eyed realism?  Demanding
ever-increasing accessibility as technology allows, and it keeps allowing
more and more, is perfectly reasonable and the way to go.

Demanding equality is something that can never be achieved.  Gene has given
perfect examples.  I had very long conversations about this very situation
with a dear friend many times over the years who had been blind since
birth.  There was no way she was ever going to have equal access to, for
instance, the Mona Lisa, the color blue, a movie, the thrill of a the end of
a hotly contested race, and many more, because a primary if not the primary
sensory input required for equal access is simply not present.  That
matters, and it matters a lot.

There's no shame nor denigration in stating plainly that things actually
based in vision, and they're myriad, cannot ever be equally accessed by
someone who can't see.  Just as things that are actually based in hearing
cannot be equally accessed by someone who cannot hear.

Every human sense is unique unto itself, and if you remove any given one of
them from someone's sensory palette, it makes actual, real equality with
someone else who has it impossible in actuality.  If this cannot be
acknowledged, then one is living in a fantasy world.

All of the above is coming from someone who has been accused, on way more
than one occasion, of "expecting too much" from individuals who are blind.
I'm only too well aware of the huge barriers that incorrect societal beliefs
and stereotypes impose.  But that's an entirely separate issue and has been,
and continues to be, best addressed by advocacy and example.  I, personally,
don't expect anything less (or more) of a blind individual than I do of a
sighted one except in things directly linked to sight and only sight.  I'd
have to be cruel, and an idiot, to say to someone who's blind, "Grab me that
orange pencil," while saying, "Grab me the pencil that's nearest to your
left," that so happens to be orange, and is what I want, makes sense.  But
if you've never seen, "orange" is nothing other than a meaningless
abstraction that one recognizes as a category for a sense one has never
had.  There's zero understanding of what orange really is.  That cannot be
overcome nor can equality of experience be created out of the whole cloth.
--

Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621;
Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit

*It is much easier to be critical than to be correct.*

~ Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881

On 4/5/23, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

Bob,

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  A screen reader user can do
some things for the most part far more speedily and efficiently than a
sighted "point and clicker," but there are other things where that's just
the opposite.  And depending on exactly what it is you are doing, you may be
able to exceed the efficiency of a sighted person but in other situations
you will never come near to it, regardless of how skilled you are.  This is
because screen readers are workarounds.  The less directly "visually cued"
and driven a given task is, the greater the probability that a screen reader
and keyboard shortcut user can blow the doors off someone who points and
clicks.

In the instance of transportation, the same paradigm applies.  There will be
times where speed and cost will be very congruent, and others not,
particularly the speed part.  I've known some very, very skilled cane users,
for instance, but they cannot "run down the street" like I can if the bus is
pulling in trying to get to it.  That can (not frequently does, but can)
have a direct impact on the speed part.

I've already said my piece in regard to UIs and accessibility recently
elsewhere.  I would not expect, for instance, there to be much of any
emphasis on accessibility in extremely complex image editing software, as my
favorite instance.  There are scads of basic image manipulation programs,
both GUI and otherwise, but you are never going to convince me that when the
blind make up approximately one-half of one percent of the population as a
whole, and there is no real reason to believe that someone who's blind would
ever be an appropriate candidate for a photo editing job, that resources
would be placed on accessibililty when they can be better placed elsewhere.
Not everything in this world is "general purpose" and if you are not (and I
include me in that you) a part of the target demographic that's intended to
use a given piece of software, then it's not going to be designed, and
should not be designed, as though you would.  Another example I can thing of
is medical imaging software as well.  There's a difference between
discrimination against and discrimination among.  The former is unjustifable
while the latter is pretty much essential in a world where specialization
has been getting more and more extreme for longer than I've been alive (60
years).
--

Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621;
Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit

*It is much easier to be critical than to be correct.*

~ Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881

All points well taken. I completely agree with you in terms of image
manipulation software and other specialized products that only apply
to certain fields that may be out of reach for the blind because of
the highly visual nature of what they are. That being said though,
those are edge cases that I wouldn't expect many people even on this
list to ask about. I would think that if someone needs a particular
piece of software for work or pleasure, they use it because they think
they can do the job they need it to do. If it's in a work environment,
I would think the person in that position is there because they and
their employer believed they could do the job.
When this topic first came up, my first thought was radio automation
software. Sure, lots of people on this list use Station Playlist,
which can sound just as good as some of the other systems out there,
but if you want to work at a station, you're going to have a hard time
finding one that uses that software. I know of two commercial stations
in the country, both in small markets, that do so. I know there have
been blind people that work in radio, but haven't been able to connect
with many of them. The one person I was able to connect with is on air
part time and has another job. He had the same engineer as another
well known personality in Indianapolis, but I haven't been able to
connect with that person. The point is that while it may be possible
for a blind person to work in radio today, the knowledge needed for
working around the inaccessibility of the software isn't widely
available. The thing is, why is audio software inaccessible when the
blind rely on audio all the time?
Your point about transportation is interesting. Sure, a blind person
isn't going to be able to run for a bus the way a sighted person
would, but I'd argue that if that bus only ran once an hour during the
week and didn't connect well to the rest of the transit system, the
sighted person in your example wouldn't be running for the bus at all,
but be driving a car.

On 4/5/23, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

Bob,

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  A screen reader user can do
some things for the most part far more speedily and efficiently than a
sighted "point and clicker," but there are other things where that's just
the opposite.  And depending on exactly what it is you are doing, you may be
able to exceed the efficiency of a sighted person but in other situations
you will never come near to it, regardless of how skilled you are.  This is
because screen readers are workarounds.  The less directly "visually cued"
and driven a given task is, the greater the probability that a screen reader
and keyboard shortcut user can blow the doors off someone who points and
clicks.

In the instance of transportation, the same paradigm applies.  There will be
times where speed and cost will be very congruent, and others not,
particularly the speed part.  I've known some very, very skilled cane users,
for instance, but they cannot "run down the street" like I can if the bus is
pulling in trying to get to it.  That can (not frequently does, but can)
have a direct impact on the speed part.

I've already said my piece in regard to UIs and accessibility recently
elsewhere.  I would not expect, for instance, there to be much of any
emphasis on accessibility in extremely complex image editing software, as my
favorite instance.  There are scads of basic image manipulation programs,
both GUI and otherwise, but you are never going to convince me that when the
blind make up approximately one-half of one percent of the population as a
whole, and there is no real reason to believe that someone who's blind would
ever be an appropriate candidate for a photo editing job, that resources
would be placed on accessibililty when they can be better placed elsewhere.
Not everything in this world is "general purpose" and if you are not (and I
include me in that you) a part of the target demographic that's intended to
use a given piece of software, then it's not going to be designed, and
should not be designed, as though you would.  Another example I can thing of
is medical imaging software as well.  There's a difference between
discrimination against and discrimination among.  The former is unjustifable
while the latter is pretty much essential in a world where specialization
has been getting more and more extreme for longer than I've been alive (60
years).
--

Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621;
Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit

*It is much easier to be critical than to be correct.*

~ Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881