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: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 4:10 AM

todays AT are often operating environments because of the
invasiveness of their results. They are middleware in the sense that
they take something passed to them and alter it for rendering or
interaction.

On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:00 PM, Peter Korn wrote:

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