Thread Subject: General Issues: Speech interfaces andequivalent facilitation

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 3:20 PM
Subject: General Issues: Speech interfaces andequivalent facilitation

Speech interfaces are being incorporated into some applications seemingly
replacing the need for screen readers. This typically is not equivalent to
the functionality of screen readers and normally does not interface with
refreshable Braille displays. It does, however, meet the functional
performance criteria (31(a)) to provide at least one mode of operation and
information retrieval that does not require user vision (assuming other
necessary features such as keyboard operation, etc.).

Thoughts on this topic?

Andi

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: General Issues: Speech interfacesand equivalent facilitation

I posted something on this earlier that might be helpful to you.

Here, I found it. We need to tweak the words to fit but the basic idea is
here.


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.


Since this would apply to the functional performance criteria I am adding
the General list.

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:12 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Speech
> interfaces and equivalent facilitation
>
>
> Speech interfaces are being incorporated into some
> applications seemingly replacing the need for screen readers.
> This typically is not equivalent to the functionality of
> screen readers and normally does not interface with
> refreshable Braille displays. It does, however, meet the
> functional performance criteria (31(a)) to provide at least
> one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not
> require user vision (assuming other necessary features such
> as keyboard operation, etc.).
>
> Thoughts on this topic?
>
> Andi
>
>

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, Jan 10 2007 6:05 AM
Subject: Re: General Issues: Speech interfacesandequivalent facilitation

Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
"Speech interfaces are being incorporated into some applications
seemingly replacing the need for screen readers. This typically is not
equivalent to the functionality of screen readers and normally does not
interface with refreshable Braille displays. It does, however, meet the
functional performance criteria (31(a)) to provide at least one mode of
operation and information retrieval that does not require user vision
(assuming other necessary features such as keyboard operation, etc.)."

If a speech interface is provided, and does provide control of "all"
functionality in an equivalent fashion, seems to me like it is an
acceptable solution for some. I think standards could be written that
say things, for example that are included in the digital talking book
player standards, that relate to allowing the user to change voice rate,
stop speech in a specific time period, repeat speech upon demand, and
some other minimum requirements. For example if the product has a
speech interface added on that allows control, but the interface doesn't
allow the statement to be repeated, it would be easy to miss important
control data and mishandle the application verbally. So, good idea in
my opinion--I think standards are needed for when this alternate or
solution is provided to ensure it really does work for various sets of
people with disabilities.

A more difficult question may be where would this kind of standard fit
into our structure at the end of the day, "speech user interfaces for
software, anything, web, phones, or what?".



Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:12 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Speech interfaces
andequivalent facilitation


Thoughts on this topic?

Andi

From: Fratkin, Mike
Date: Wed, Jan 10 2007 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: General Issues: Speech interfacesandequivalent facilitation

I concur that speech interfaces can be acceptable if they provide
equivalent functionality to the basic functions that screen readers
provide. However, in the instances where embedded speech engines have
been proposed, I have not seen this equivalency. Besides many of the
basic capabilities being excluded, typically refreshable Braille
functionality is not incorporated. Additionally, speech is usually not
available for all activities within an application so screen readers
have to kick in when needed which causes additional confusion.

Mike Fratkin
SSA

[Andi wrote:]

Speech interfaces are being incorporated into some applications
seemingly replacing the need for screen readers. This typically is not
equivalent to the functionality of screen readers and normally does not
interface with refreshable Braille displays. It does, however, meet the
functional performance criteria (31(a)) to provide at least one mode of
operation and information retrieval that does not require user vision
(assuming other necessary features such as keyboard operation, etc.).

Thoughts on this topic?

Andi

From: awoolley@cusa.canon.com
Date: Wed, Jan 10 2007 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: General Issues: Speech interfaces and equivalent facilitation

RE:

What if we just said

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, could you explain more about what could be considered "products
that require productivity"?

It seems that it could be almost any E&IT product, depending on how it is
being used.

I'm also concerned that if this group of products were only required to be
accessible through AT, manufacturers would no longer be motivated to
design accessibility into the product itself and we may even lose some of
the progress we have gained in this area.

Aubrey

Aubrey Woolley
Government Policy and Compliance Analyst
Government Marketing Division
Canon USA, Inc.
TEL: (703) 807-3158
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




"Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
01/10/2007 01:19 AM
Please respond to
TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
"'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Speech
interfaces and equivalent facilitation






I posted something on this earlier that might be helpful to you.

Here, I found it. We need to tweak the words to fit but the basic idea
is
here.


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.


Since this would apply to the functional performance criteria I am adding
the General list.

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:12 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Speech
> interfaces and equivalent facilitation
>
>
> Speech interfaces are being incorporated into some
> applications seemingly replacing the need for screen readers.
> This typically is not equivalent to the functionality of
> screen readers and normally does not interface with
> refreshable Braille displays. It does, however, meet the
> functional performance criteria (31(a)) to provide at least
> one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not
> require user vision (assuming other necessary features such
> as keyboard operation, etc.).
>
> Thoughts on this topic?
>
> Andi
>
>

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Thu, Jan 18 2007 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: General Issues: Speech interfacesandequivalent facilitation

Andi,

My thoughts are I've seen this in a certain PDF reader and in
certain eLearning software. All the implementations I've seen have
problems. They simply don't provide full access. Furthermore they
typically do not work well with Assistive Technology, interrupting the
use of AT and thus not in Section 508 compliance on that issue alone.

I think the vendors should be using the existing operating
system interface where available. This supposes the operating system
provides such an interface, which is expected in most implementation for
consumer desktop operating systems and I think reasonable.

My personal experiences on this matter are that we should avoid
such an approach as it increases the burden on the purchasing agent to
identify the accessibility issues and increases the burden on the
developers to duplicate the same resources that might already be
provided in the operating system.

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 Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:12 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Speech interfaces
andequivalent facilitation



Speech interfaces are being incorporated into some applications
seemingly
replacing the need for screen readers. This typically is not equivalent
to
the functionality of screen readers and normally does not interface with
refreshable Braille displays. It does, however, meet the functional
performance criteria (31(a)) to provide at least one mode of operation
and
information retrieval that does not require user vision (assuming other
necessary features such as keyboard operation, etc.).

Thoughts on this topic?

Andi

From: David Poehlman
Date: Sat, Jan 20 2007 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: General Issues: Speech interfacesandequivalent facilitation

I think equivelant fascilitation applies here. If it doesn't
comppletely replace at or if there is not support so that it can, it
is not accessible. I might let it slide on braille depending on what
it is to be used for but I stress might because one example I can see
that fits here is an audio player but if we use daisy as the format/
standaard, we need braille since daisy provides for searchable text.

On Jan 10, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:

Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
"Speech interfaces are being incorporated into some applications
seemingly replacing the need for screen readers. This typically is not
equivalent to the functionality of screen readers and normally does not
interface with refreshable Braille displays. It does, however, meet the
functional performance criteria (31(a)) to provide at least one mode of
operation and information retrieval that does not require user vision
(assuming other necessary features such as keyboard operation, etc.)."

If a speech interface is provided, and does provide control of "all"
functionality in an equivalent fashion, seems to me like it is an
acceptable solution for some. I think standards could be written that
say things, for example that are included in the digital talking book
player standards, that relate to allowing the user to change voice rate,
stop speech in a specific time period, repeat speech upon demand, and
some other minimum requirements. For example if the product has a
speech interface added on that allows control, but the interface doesn't
allow the statement to be repeated, it would be easy to miss important
control data and mishandle the application verbally. So, good idea in
my opinion--I think standards are needed for when this alternate or
solution is provided to ensure it really does work for various sets of
people with disabilities.

A more difficult question may be where would this kind of standard fit
into our structure at the end of the day, "speech user interfaces for
software, anything, web, phones, or what?".



Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:12 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Speech interfaces
andequivalent facilitation


Thoughts on this topic?

Andi

From: awoolley@cusa.canon.com
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: General Issues: Speech interfaces and equivalent facilitation

To clarify my comment from 1/10/07 (which I hope was not taken out of
context):

GV:
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.

Canon supports accessible design for mainstream E&IT products via
available assistive technology (AT), through the device itself, or
through collaborative use of both.

As an active member of the Assistive Technology Industry Association
(ATIA), Canon USA is a supporter of AT. Due to the wide range of
disabilities that exist, AT fulfills an important role in creating an
"accessible" product. Because mainstream E&IT is designed for a broad
market, AT can provide specialized access that standard products do not
usually offer.

I should add that I am speaking from a hardware perspective. Though, I
don't see why it would be beneficial for AT to simply "go away someday"
and am not supportive of this concept.

Best Regards,

Aubrey

Aubrey Woolley
Government Policy and Compliance Analyst
Government Marketing Division
Canon USA, Inc.
TEL: (703) 807-3158
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
01/20/2007 06:25 AM
Please respond to
TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Speech
interfaces and equivalent facilitation






I agree with the following and would ad that it should be our hope
that AT will go away someday because we don't need it anymore due to
product advance.

"I'm also concerned that if this group of products were only required
to be
accessible through AT, manufacturers would no longer be motivated to
design accessibility into the product itself and we may even lose
some of
the progress we have gained in this area."

On Jan 10, 2007, at 10:38 AM, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:

RE:

What if we just said

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, could you explain more about what could be considered "products
that require productivity"?

It seems that it could be almost any E&IT product, depending on how
it is
being used.

I'm also concerned that if this group of products were only required
to be
accessible through AT, manufacturers would no longer be motivated to
design accessibility into the product itself and we may even lose
some of
the progress we have gained in this area.

Aubrey

Aubrey Woolley
Government Policy and Compliance Analyst
Government Marketing Division
Canon USA, Inc.
TEL: (703) 807-3158
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




"Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
01/10/2007 01:19 AM
Please respond to
TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
"'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Speech
interfaces and equivalent facilitation






I posted something on this earlier that might be helpful to you.

Here, I found it. We need to tweak the words to fit but the basic
idea
is
here.


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.


Since this would apply to the functional performance criteria I am
adding
the General list.

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:12 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Speech
> interfaces and equivalent facilitation
>
>
> Speech interfaces are being incorporated into some
> applications seemingly replacing the need for screen readers.
> This typically is not equivalent to the functionality of
> screen readers and normally does not interface with
> refreshable Braille displays. It does, however, meet the
> functional performance criteria (31(a)) to provide at least
> one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not
> require user vision (assuming other necessary features such
> as keyboard operation, etc.).
>
> Thoughts on this topic?
>
> Andi
>
>