E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 19 (In chronological order)

From: McMorland, Gabriel
Date: Tue, Jul 30 2013 11:01AM
Subject: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
No previous message | Next message →

I'm looking for a regularly updated comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software. A regularly updated comprehensive list detailing all aspects of accessibility for software would also be great.

Does anyone know of such a list? Perhaps a government maintains one?

From: deborah.kaplan
Date: Tue, Jul 30 2013 11:39AM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

McMorland, Gabriel wrote:

> I'm lookng for a regularly updated comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software. A regularly updated comprehensive list detailing all aspects of accessibility for software would also be great.

Such a list would be impractical -- if not impossible -- to
create and maintain. There are an ever-growing number of software
products, and each revision might improve or detract from their
level of keyboard accessibility.

However, perhaps you can focus the question further. Are you
looking for a list of major office suite products (e.g. Microsoft
Office, Libre Office, etc.) which are relatively good at keyboard
accessibility? Social networking products? Graphic design
products? Within a certain sphere, you might be able to find a
better resource (with the understanding that it would likely be
out of date as soon as it was created).

Deborah Kaplan
Accessibility Team Co-Lead
Dreamwidth Studios

From: McMorland, Gabriel
Date: Tue, Jul 30 2013 11:51AM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

Good point. How effective do you find Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates?
How effective do you find this site?
http://buyaccessible.gov/

From: Poore-Pariseau, Cindy
Date: Tue, Jul 30 2013 11:52AM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

I am very interested in the response to this question as well


" Sometimes it is better to be kind than right" Amy Grant
Cindy Poore-Pariseau, Ph. D.
Bristol Community College
Coordinator of Disability Services
Office of Disability Services, L115
Fall River, MA 02720
phone: 508-678-2811 ext. 2470
Fax: 508-730-3297
aim: poorepariseau

From: deborah.kaplan
Date: Tue, Jul 30 2013 12:01PM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

When I am evaluating Voluntary Product Accessibilit Template, I
look more for how they are filled out then for the answers they
gave.

For example, I have evaluated products which just put
"compliant" in every single checkbox on the VPAT. Since I have
yet to meet many products which can be completely considered
compliant, those answers just tell me that they filled out the
VPAT thoughtlessly, which leads me to believe that they are
presumably thoughtless about accessibility. (Obviously I will
combine that assessment with my own accessibility analysis; so
far I have a perfect score on "shallow VPAT that just claims
perfect compliance means barely accessible product."}

On the other hand, if I see a VPAT which is filled out
comprehensively, with the product limitations so carefully
detailed they could effectively be a bug list, it makes me think
that they probably came from ... a bug list. That is to say, it
makes me think this is a company that notices accessibility
problems, examines them, reports them, and presumably intends to
fix them.

Deborah Kaplan
Accessibility Team Co-Lead
Dreamwidth Studios

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, McMorland, Gabriel wrote:

> Good point. How effective do you find Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates?
> How effective do you find this site?
> http://buyaccessible.gov/
>
>
>

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Tue, Jul 30 2013 1:10PM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

As far as keyboard shortcut databases are concerned (I¹m not clear how
this relates to evaluating VPATs), I¹ve found KeyXL
(http://www.keyxl.com/) to be a fantastic resource for finding keyboard
shortcuts to many programs. A lot of the software is old, but shortcuts
don¹t generally change all that much.

Jon




On 7/30/13 2:01 PM, " = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>When I am evaluating Voluntary Product Accessibilit Template, I
>look more for how they are filled out then for the answers they
>gave.
>
>For example, I have evaluated products which just put
>"compliant" in every single checkbox on the VPAT. Since I have
>yet to meet many products which can be completely considered
>compliant, those answers just tell me that they filled out the
>VPAT thoughtlessly, which leads me to believe that they are
>presumably thoughtless about accessibility. (Obviously I will
>combine that assessment with my own accessibility analysis; so
>far I have a perfect score on "shallow VPAT that just claims
>perfect compliance means barely accessible product."}
>
>On the other hand, if I see a VPAT which is filled out
>comprehensively, with the product limitations so carefully
>detailed they could effectively be a bug list, it makes me think
>that they probably came from ... a bug list. That is to say, it
>makes me think this is a company that notices accessibility
>problems, examines them, reports them, and presumably intends to
>fix them.
>
>Deborah Kaplan
>Accessibility Team Co-Lead
>Dreamwidth Studios
>
>On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, McMorland, Gabriel wrote:
>
>> Good point. How effective do you find Voluntary Product Accessibility
>>Templates?
>> How effective do you find this site?
>> http://buyaccessible.gov/
>>
>>
>>

From: McMorland, Gabriel
Date: Tue, Jul 30 2013 1:36PM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

I'm looking for a way to efficiently identify whether software is keyboard accessible or not. Instead of learning keyboard shortcuts, I need to know what tasks cannot be performed with the keyboard at all.
This is a cool website, though.

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Tue, Jul 30 2013 2:56PM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

Ahhh. I misread the post. Sorry about that.

From: McMorland, Gabriel
Date: Tue, Jul 30 2013 3:02PM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

My question is really, Is some other institution already doing a great job at vetting commercial software accessibility? I hope so, because it looks time consuming and a lot of the programs our students would use are widely used by lots of people.

I do take the point about the complexity of this issue, though. Debra has a good insight on reading VPATs.

From: Bourne, Sarah (ITD)
Date: Tue, Jul 30 2013 3:30PM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

Many times I have wished for a warehouse of information on the accessibility of ITC products, but I think there are two things that make that a harder thing to do than you might think.

The first is that accessibility is not a true/false or yes/no situation. There are always flaws of some kind, just as there are bound to be spelling or grammatical errors someplace on a website of any size. What you end up doing is assessing the impact of the flaws: does it prevent somebody from completing a task, or does it just make it a bit harder to complete, or is it only sort of annoying? Answering these questions requires judgment calls, and where there's judgment, there's bound to be disagreement.

And judgment calls and disagreement lead to the second thing: fear of legal liability ("How dare you say we're not accessible! See you in court!") or the converse, fear of illegally (for certain civil servants) promoting a particular product.

There must be a way of sharing this type of information that avoids those two things, but it would take a lot of work to be sure it's done properly. (How do we know the results of accessibility test were conducted by knowledgeable people and are reliable? How do we ensure the same tests are being done when they come from different sources? How are barrier assessments and mitigations documented?)

Having this information openly available could help in getting vendors to compete with each other in this area, which could result in improved accessibility of procured ICT. However, it could also work the other way, if there is a market where none of the products have any meaningful accessibility. They may see it like not needing to run faster than the tiger, but only having to run faster than their competitors.

sb
Sarah E. Bourne
Director of Assistive Technology &
Mass.Gov Chief Technology Strategist
Information Technology Division
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
617-626-4502
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.mass.gov/itd

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Tue, Jul 30 2013 3:30PM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

Debra makes some good points about what to look out for. A lot of VPATs
seem to be marketing propaganda too, but they should read like a technical
spec sheet.

The purpose of VPATs should be to highlight what makes one product or
service more accessible than another. I recently found a relatively decent
example from Articulate’s Storyline eLearning software
(http://www.articulate.com/products/storyline-section-508-vpat.php). I
think it’s important to highlight where accessibility exceeds (for
example, if something hits WCAG AAA level, it should be mentioned), and if
it doesn’t meet a provision, then it should be mentioned or a workaround
suggested (i.e. “Final delivered PDFs will not include comments”).

My rule is, if it doesn’t inform me of what the thing does or doesn’t do,
it’s not a good VPAT.

Jon

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Wed, Jul 31 2013 8:20AM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

>What you end up doing is assessing the impact of the flaws: does it
>prevent somebody from completing a task, or does it just make it a bit
>harder to complete, or is it only sort of annoying? Answering these
>questions requires judgment calls, and where there's judgment, there's
>bound to be disagreement.

Karl Groves talks about this a lot on his web site (follow that link to
Prioritization for some background)
http://www.karlgroves.com/2013/07/30/tracking-web-accessibility-success/.


>There must be a way of sharing this type of information that avoids those
>two things, but it would take a lot of work to be sure it's done
>properly. (How do we know the results of accessibility test were
>conducted by knowledgeable people and are reliable? How do we ensure the
>same tests are being done when they come from different sources? How are
>barrier assessments and mitigations documented?)

Since Section 508 is essentially going to be mirroring WCAG, I wonder what
harm it would be to bring back that model that Karl speaks about in
Prioritizing Accessibility, particularly with regards to VPATs. There are
a lot of things that are absolutely necessary to work, and there are other
things that are mainly salt on an open wound. Since the Refresh is getting
rid of categorization, this could be an ample opportunity for this stuff.

>Having this information openly available could help in getting vendors to
>compete with each other in this area, which could result in improved
>accessibility of procured ICT. However, it could also work the other way,
>if there is a market where none of the products have any meaningful
>accessibility. They may see it like not needing to run faster than the
>tiger, but only having to run faster than their competitors.

I think that having information widely open as you suggest would be a
great thing, if for no other reason than to generate some healthy
competition. However, unless agencies start to compare PATs instead of
just looking at whether it¹s been filled out, we¹ll continue to see really
bad accessibility templates.


Jon

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Wed, Jul 31 2013 5:04PM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

> I recently found a relatively decent
example from Articulate’s Storyline eLearning software
(http://www.articulate.com/products/storyline-section-508-vpat.php).

Personally I no longer trust Articulate. TL;DR: A year ago I checked them
out, they claimed full compliance then. No demos were compliant. I had one
team of experienced people in both e-learning and 508 put something
together via StoryLine, following all directions. Upon testing, the output
was kind of compliant, but had a slew of issues, nothing I'd "green light."
While working with our team, I was talking to one of their VPs, who said
the team was doing it incorrectly. I requested that they provide me a fully
compliant demo, they were not able to.

--
Ryan E. Benson


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Jonathan Metz
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:

> Debra makes some good points about what to look out for. A lot of VPATs
> seem to be marketing propaganda too, but they should read like a technical
> spec sheet.
>
> The purpose of VPATs should be to highlight what makes one product or
> service more accessible than another. I recently found a relatively decent
> example from Articulate’s Storyline eLearning software
> (http://www.articulate.com/products/storyline-section-508-vpat.php). I
> think it’s important to highlight where accessibility exceeds (for
> example, if something hits WCAG AAA level, it should be mentioned), and if
> it doesn’t meet a provision, then it should be mentioned or a workaround
> suggested (i.e. “Final delivered PDFs will not include comments”).
>
> My rule is, if it doesn’t inform me of what the thing does or doesn’t do,
> it’s not a good VPAT.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> On 7/30/13 5:02 PM, "McMorland, Gabriel" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> >My question is really, Is some other institution already doing a great
> >job at vetting commercial software accessibility? I hope so, because it
> >looks time consuming and a lot of the programs our students would use are
> >widely used by lots of people.
> >
> >I do take the point about the complexity of this issue, though. Debra has
> >a good insight on reading VPATs.

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Thu, Aug 01 2013 7:01AM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks for the opinion Ryan. That’s very helpful, and I’ve passed it
along.

Theoretically, if an agency went through the normal market research and
acquired that software on the basis of their VPAT, doesn’t the FAR allow
the agency to require that they live up to their accessibility claims?


Jon

From: Bourne, Sarah (ITD)
Date: Thu, Aug 01 2013 9:49AM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 8/1/13 9:01 AM, " Jonathan Metz " wrote:
>Theoretically, if an agency went through the normal market research and acquired that software on the basis of their VPAT, doesn't the FAR allow the agency to require that they live up to their accessibility claims?

Almost every VPAT I have ever seen includes a disclaimer along the lines of, "this document has no legal standing". Here is an example, with the company name redacted:
"This document is for informational purposes only. Its content is subject to change without notice, and [company] does not warrant that it is error-free. [company] MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OR OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The information contained in this document represents [company] 's current view of accessibility criteria as of the date of publication; it is in no way intended to be a binding guideline on how to ensure accessibility of software products. [company] specifically disclaims any liability with respect to this document and no contractual obligations or commitments are formed either directly or indirectly by this document. This document is for internal use only and may not be circulated or distributed outside your organization without [company]'s prior written authorization."

The best tool for ensuring that any given vendor sticks to its accessibility claims (and/or your standards) is to make sure that it is in your procurement documents and final contract. I recommend that that you hold out for adherence to standards rather than their claims to minimize weasel holes. In cases where a product is not fully compliant at time of selection, you should include terms that require them to fix bugs (preferably prior to launch) or to help you identify non-onerous mitigations and accommodations. We have been using this process for a few years now; results have been improving over time. A large part of our success is the use of non-biased, expert third-party testers. This mitigates the quality problems with VPATs. More information on our IT Acquisition Accessibility Compliance Program can be found at http://mass.gov/accessibility if you'd like to borrow ideas.

sb
Sarah E. Bourne
Director of Assistive Technology &
Mass.Gov Chief Technology Strategist
Information Technology Division
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
617-626-4502
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.mass.gov/itd

From: McMorland, Gabriel
Date: Thu, Aug 01 2013 10:03AM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks for this very useful advice!

Do companies usually post their VPATs publicly, or do we have to specifically request them from a sales rep? I notice this disclaimer prevents the organization from publicly sharing the VPAT without express permission.

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Thu, Aug 01 2013 10:08AM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks Sarah,


Very useful advice! As I used to freelance quite a bit, I agree completely
with getting everything in writing! I¹ll take a gander at your page for
some ideas as we get our ducks in a row.

Jon

On 8/1/13 11:49 AM, "Bourne, Sarah (ITD)" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>On 8/1/13 9:01 AM, " Jonathan Metz " wrote:
>>Theoretically, if an agency went through the normal market research and
>>acquired that software on the basis of their VPAT, doesn't the FAR allow
>>the agency to require that they live up to their accessibility claims?
>
>Almost every VPAT I have ever seen includes a disclaimer along the lines
>of, "this document has no legal standing". Here is an example, with the
>company name redacted:
>"This document is for informational purposes only. Its content is
>subject to change without notice, and [company] does not warrant that it
>is error-free. [company] MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OR OF
>MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>The information contained in this document represents [company] 's
>current view of accessibility criteria as of the date of publication; it
>is in no way intended to be a binding guideline on how to ensure
>accessibility of software products. [company] specifically disclaims any
>liability with respect to this document and no contractual obligations or
>commitments are formed either directly or indirectly by this document.
>This document is for internal use only and may not be circulated or
>distributed outside your organization without [company]'s prior written
>authorization."
>
>The best tool for ensuring that any given vendor sticks to its
>accessibility claims (and/or your standards) is to make sure that it is
>in your procurement documents and final contract. I recommend that that
>you hold out for adherence to standards rather than their claims to
>minimize weasel holes. In cases where a product is not fully compliant at
>time of selection, you should include terms that require them to fix bugs
>(preferably prior to launch) or to help you identify non-onerous
>mitigations and accommodations. We have been using this process for a
>few years now; results have been improving over time. A large part of
>our success is the use of non-biased, expert third-party testers. This
>mitigates the quality problems with VPATs. More information on our IT
>Acquisition Accessibility Compliance Program can be found at
>http://mass.gov/accessibility if you'd like to borrow ideas.
>
>sb
>Sarah E. Bourne
>Director of Assistive Technology &
>Mass.Gov Chief Technology Strategist
>Information Technology Division
>Commonwealth of Massachusetts
>1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
>617-626-4502
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>http://www.mass.gov/itd
>>>

From: Bourne, Sarah (ITD)
Date: Thu, Aug 01 2013 11:44AM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | Next message →

Some companies post their VPATs, others don't. In my experience, companies who have been doing accessibility longer (Microsoft and IBM, for instance) are more likely to make VPATs publicly available - even when the news is not good. (Even the most pro-accessibility companies get bitten by acquisitions.)

sb
Sarah E. Bourne
Director of Assistive Technology &
Mass.Gov Chief Technology Strategist
Information Technology Division
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
617-626-4502
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.mass.gov/itd

From: John E Brandt
Date: Thu, Aug 01 2013 12:44PM
Subject: Re: comprehensive list of keyboard accessible software?
← Previous message | No next message

Thank you too, Sarah for this important info.

I might add that the VPATs can also be very outdated and with the increase
use of cloud-based services that change moment to moment, increasingly
irrelevant.

~j

John E. Brandt
jebswebs: accessible and universal design,
development and consultation
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
207-622-7937
Augusta, Maine, USA

@jebswebs