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: Mon, Jan 08 2007 4:35 PM

Not sure what "AT middleware is". You said you thought screen readers were
middleware. (not sure what a screen reader is in the middle of - unless
all interfaces are middleware.) so I'm not sure I'm understanding you. But
let me take a stab and see if I misunderstood.

You asked

> This leaves unaddressed the question of "What if a product is
> 'accessible through AT,' but there is no AT middleware
> available for it?"

If I understand the proposition you mean "Only" accessible through AT
correct? (if it was also directly accessible then there is not problem).
But if the product is not usable by people with disabilities except through
AT and there is no AT - then I don't see how we could call it accessible.
Certainly, anyone with a disability that was employed in a government job
that would now be using that software would have to find another job or go
create their own AT for the software it would seem.

Did I misunderstand?

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Rex Lint
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 11:17 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-websoftware][teitac-general][teitac-closed]"closed software"
>
> Jim, Gregg, et. al.
>
> Many manufacturers include "Out of the Box" (OOTB)
> applications with their operating systems. These are not
> (necessarily) cutting edge, but intended to provide SOME
> level of access to functionality. An example is WORDPAD (I
> don't think they include NOTEPAD any more) by Microsoft, for
> simple, limited editing.
>
> Anyone who wants to do more than rudimentary editing would
> procure and use some other, robust application - a
> word-processor. WORD is one, and there are others. These
> feature-rich applications supplant the function of the OOTB
> application(s).
>
> Manufacturers have taken similar approaches to accessibility
> provisions.
> Take NARRATOR on XP. It's not for extensive use, it's for
> getting access to something on a VERY occasional basis. I
> think it's valuable because it gives the general public the
> vision that it's possible to hear the contents of a page
> instead of see it - good for simple demos about accessibility.
>
> I'm sure the same situation applies to the use of O/S "Out of the Box"
> accessibility utilities: people with specific disabilities
> will want to get really robust "middleware" to address their needs.
>
> So I see there is a range of software we're talking about in
> this thread -
>
> * Utilities intended for limited, infrequent use,
> * Applications that address the needs to accomplish a task
> * Middleware that sits between applications and the OS or
> applications and the user.
>
> I think AT like screen readers fall in the middleware class.
>
> I think a definition of AT that acknowledges this spectrum would be
> appropriate:
>
> Perhaps the utilities (particularly if done through a
> published API) could form the basis of one level, "built-in"
> perhaps, accessibility.
>
> Then compatibility with middleware-class AT (hopefully
> through the sendor-supplied published API) would be enough to
> make the product rise to a level classed as "accessible
> through AT." This approach would tend to make "built-in" AT
> less desirable than "accessible through AT," to people with
> disabilities.
>
> This leaves unaddressed the question of "What if a product is
> 'accessible through AT,' but there is no AT middleware
> available for it?"
>
> As Gregg would say, "Hmmmm...."
>
> Rex
>
>
> Rex Lint,
> Information Technology Association of America
> PH: 603-860-7651
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 11:01 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-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