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: Sun, Jan 07 2007 7:15 PM

I think Jim is correct. In fact I think that any definition of AT will
create problems.

See new NCD report
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2006/emerging_trends.htm

The question is:

- do we need to define AT?
- if so - which version do we use - and what are the implications in regs.
- if, as is posited, AT won't have any clear definition in the future, how
do we address AT compatibility?
- do we create a definition for a new subset of AT that we can define?
1 Personal AT (carried about and used with multiple devices - like
wheelchairs and hearing aids)
2 Adaptive AT (added to a specific product (e.g. screen reader)
3 Built in Accommodations (things that come with or download transparently
to user)

Something different?

These three need to be treated separately for example in the 508/255 regs.

3 should count as 'built in' and is part of "closed" products.
2 must be able to be connected or installed or product is closed
1 must be usable even on closed products (up to the standard spec'd level)

Etc


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jim Tobias
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:01 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC General
> Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Cc: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta]
> [teitac-websoftware][teitac-general][teitac-closed]"closed software"
>
> I'm copying the Subpart A folks on this discussion because
> that's where the AT definition will reside, and because I
> know some of them have definite and expansive ideas about the
> definition of AT.
>
> I agree that splitting hairs will not get us anywhere, and
> that we're moving towards an environment in which there may
> well be a range of AT functionality in an OS setting, an OS
> utility, a bundled application, and a clearly third-party AT
> application requiring separate installation.
>
> I'm not sure that "paying extra" is the best or only way to
> identify AT, as price is certainly not the worst or only
> barrier to the use of AT. The combination of lack of
> information and lack of confidence in altering their
> computer's standard operation is what holds most people back.
> For evidence, look at the Microsoft study on
> underutilization of the many capabilities found free within
> Windows. Similarly, installing Gnopernicus is not exactly a
> one-click experience.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 12:15 AM
> > To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC
> > Web/Software Subcommittee'
> > Cc: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware]
> > [teitac-general][teitac-closed]"closed software"
> >
> > No. AT can be from same company.
> >
> > If the user has to pay extra for it - then I would call it AT.
> >
> > If it comes as part of the product - I would call it built in.
> > Especially if it is shipped as part of the product to everyone.
> >
> > But I think we need to write our regs so that we don't have to get
> > into such discussions or hair splitting. Because the way
> things are
> > going it will be
> > impossible to separate things into AT or not-AT. Use any
> > definition you
> > like and I will give you examples that fit both definitions at
> > different times.
> >
> > The issue isn't whether it is AT or not. I belive that
> what we need
> > to focus on is whether people with disabilities, with whatever they
> > have, can access and use the products.
> >
> > Now - how to phrase the standards to do this...
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter
> > > Korn
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:07 PM
> > > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > > Cc: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'; 'TEITAC
> > > General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-websoftware]
> > > [teitac-closed]"closed software"
> > >
> > > Hi Gregg,
> > >
> > > I don't understand this. Is it part of the definition of
> > AT that it
> > > comes from a 3rd party, separate from the OS? Or can it be
> > the same
> > > party as the OS, but just not with the OS (e.g.
> ScreenReader/2 for
> > > OS/2)?
> > >
> > > Separately, today in the Web & Software SC call, Andi asked about
> > > non-AT voice recognition software (is it only AT if it is called
> > > "AT"?).
> > >
> > >
> > > I suggest that Apple's VoiceOver (bundled with the OS X 10.4 and
> > > later), and Gnopernicus & GOK (bundled with Solaris 10),
> and GOK &
> > > Orca (bundled with Ubuntu GNU/Linux 6.10) *are* all AT.
> In exactly
> > > the same way that we (now) say that WordPad is an
> application (even
> > > though it is bundled with Windows).
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Peter Korn
> > > Accessibility Architect,
> > > Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> > > > I thought of that as I wrote it.
> > > >
> > > > Well, since it is built into the OS, the application that
> > > work with it would
> > > > be directly accessible since they are accessible without
> > > needing any AT.
> > > > Remember that any software with access built in would need
> > > to rely on OS
> > > > functions (speech, sound, keyboard etc). this would also
> > > rely on the
> > > > voiceover functionality.
> > > >
> > > > Since they have an API - it would ALSO be compatible with
> > > any AT that was
> > > > out there.
> > > >
> > > > Having an API only though - without AT support would not be
> > > accessible (i.e.
> > > > usable with people who have disabilities) if there was no
> > > AT. That is why
> > > > Apple built it into their system and have an API. They
> > > support AT but are
> > > > not subject to AT availability - which was a problem for
> > > them - at least for
> > > > screen readers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gregg
> > > > -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> > Behalf Of David
> > > >> Poehlman
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:38 AM
> > > >> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > > >> Cc: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
> > subcommittee'; 'TEITAC
> > > >> General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
> > > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-websoftware]
> > [teitac-closed]
> > > >> "closed software"
> > > >>
> > > >> greg, am I to understand then that your #2 excludes the
> > Mac which
> > > >> has its ownn AT?
> > > >>
> > > >> On Jan 3, 2007, at 1:02 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> 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