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: Peter Korn
Date: Mon, Jan 08 2007 8:05 PM

Hi Rex,
> 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.
>
>

This distinction between NARRATOR and a commercial screen reader (one
being a "utility", the other "middleware") seems artificial to me.
While NARRATOR is not a full fledged full-featured application, it
doesn't follow that all built-in AT are likewise not full-fledged,
full-featured. For example, Apple's VoiceOver has far more features
than NARRATOR. The UNIX Orca screen reader likewise has a rich feature
set (and unlike NARRATOR and VoiceOver, work with the major office suite
on their platform). Do they remain "utilities" because they are
built-in? Or because they haven't crossed some threshold of functionality?

Also note, AT that comes with an OS can even be more full-featured than
commercial AT - the GNOME On-screen keyboard does far more than
commercial Windows products, and it ships with several UNIX OSes. And
the Dasher text-entry alternative for eye-gaze and head tracker users is
bundled with some UNIX releases, while it is a 3rd party download
(though a free one) for Windows and Macintosh. So is it a "utility" on
UNIX and "middleware" on Windows & Mac?


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.


> 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