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: Rex Lint
Date: Mon, Jan 08 2007 7:45 PM

GV = Gregg
RL = Rex

GV:
" Not sure what "AT middleware is"."

RL:

My name for, lets say, a screen reader: It's not an "application" that does
work like a word processor.
It's not a utility, like NARRATOR, analogous to your 30-second door opener.
It's in the middle, between an application, the o/s and the user.

GV:

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?"

RL:

I didn't really ask this. I proposed that there were levels of
accessibility, just like you proposed different speeds of "door openers." I
said that if you accept the idea of different levels of accessibility, there
was an open question that we've been kicking around before, having to do
with providing hooks for AT but having no AT that took advantage of those
hooks and thereby provided access to the IT for people with disabilities.


Rex
---------

Rex Lint, Consultant
Chair, Section 508 Working Group
Information Technology Association of America
PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:25 PM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC General Interface
Accessibility Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Cc: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed][teitac-websoftware][teitac-general]"closed
software"

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
>

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