Thread Subject: Re: "closed software"

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Jan 02 2007 11:15 PM

Hi Norman,

I agree with your premise that there shouldn't be any closed software.

But if there is software that is closed (not accessible to AT) for any
reason (business, technical or security) then we do want to require that it
is accessible - no? And I believe that there will be legitimate arguments
for some places where the software will be closed - and/or that there will
be no AT developed for or that can be used with the product.

I'm not talking about desktop computers necessarily.

What if we just said

1) that products need to be accessible either via available assistive
technology or directly accessible.

2) that products that require productivity (e.g. workstations) need to be
accessible to assistive technologies to allow matching of user abilities
necessary to achieve high levels of productivity.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 2:54 PM
> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee;
> TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>
> Since I earlier offered a different perspective on "closed
> software", I thought I would respond to each item.
>
> 1. Security reasons: Security should be a part of a
> requirement in the same way accessibility should be a part of
> the requirement for a product. First, security options _CAN_
> be accessible (e.g., accessible CAPTCHAs or accessible login
> screens). Second, where there is a technical determination
> that no access to application programming interfaces (APIs)
> that work with assistive technology is allowed, there is a
> business justification. No matter what assistive technology
> can do, if the system designed to block user interaction to
> only one type of system interface for business reasons, that
> is an exception. However, I'd be amiss if I didn't say see "First".
>
> 2. Besides semantics, and debating among friends, software
> can't run without an operating system unless it, itself, IS
> the operating system.
>
> 3. What is the point of making a classification of "CLOSED SOFTWARE"?
> What does it mean to us in context of Section 508? Your
> example is one of being accessible through design. I'd say
> the example doesn't help the argument and problem we are
> trying to solve (if you'll please forgive me). We are
> concerned when software doesn't work with assistive
> technology and isn't designed to be accessible. I'd also say
> I have the expectation that this software is generally only
> used in conjunction with specialized hardware. Firefox web
> browser was considered to be too small a market for certain
> AT vendors. What does that mean? I think they have an API. I
> think this is complex interaction of _accessibility
> interfaces_ dependent on the operating system. Sorry, I'm an
> Amiga/Windows/OSX/Linux user and it varies considerably. It
> is too easy to just think in context of one platform,
> especially when embedded operating systems in phones are so
> plentiful and experiencing these same issues. Sorry to
> ramble, I think I need to discuss this some more.
>
> 4. Platform software issues are interesting. Is commercial
> availability exemptions? Tying it to vendor product and
> 'official' support is dangerous too; I'm sure my MS Windows
> vendor doesn't support me running Linux on my corporate
> desktop, but the screen reader and web browser works just
> fine for most of my needs. I think that is close to the
> earlier iPod firmware upgrade. But who cares? Even if a 3rd
> party or Apple made the software as an add-on to the product
> it can be made accessible. The debate so far has focused on
> the vendor not developing assistive technology. Third parties
> do and you can make things accessible without assistive technology.
>
> Sorry to disagree, but the closed software approach doesn't
> work well for Section 508 evaluation. I can't help but feel
> we're not asking the right questions. DRM is bad for
> end-users, security typically negatively impacts end-user
> experience, and accessibility is all about the user!
> This discussion is really useful for questioning vendors and
> how they support our business/agency. I don't think finding
> justification for closed software means we should place a
> label on software and treat it any differently from any other
> software. Closed software should be accessible and follow the
> same technical standards as any other software.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Norman B. Robinson
> Section 508 Coordinator
> IT Governance, US Postal Service
> phone: 202.268.8246
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:45 PM
> To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'; 'TEITAC
> Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Cc: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>
>
> Some possible examples of closed software.
>
> Maybe some things like: (numbered only to facilitate discussion)
>
> 1 - Software that for security reasons does not allow
> anything to access
> what it has on screen and which reads keyboard registers directly to
> avoid
> tampering or 'remote' typing.
>
> 2 - Software designed to run on a product without and
> operating system.
>
> 3 - Software that has no API for AT - but instead has built in
> accessibility
> since there is no AT vendor who will work with and support the unique
> capability of the software because the market is too small for AT
> vendors.
>
> 4 - Something like Randy pointed to (see just below). The hardware is
> not
> closed since new software can be loaded. But the platform/software is
> closed.
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University