E-mail List Archives
Number of posts in this thread: 14 (In chronological order)
From: Joe Clark
Date: Feb 20, 2006 3:10PM
Subject: Screen-reader updates
No previous message | Next message →
Joshue O Connor:
>but those screen readers can be phenomenally expensive... JAWS,
>industry-standard in screen readers, costs as much as $600 just for
>an upgrade... Screen reader upgrades (JAWS anyway), are very
>expensive
I'm not going to run the numbers again, but that oft-repeated
shibboleth was conclusively debunked in my PDF article:
<http://www.alistapart.com/articles/pdf_accessibility/#Maguire-2>;
Some significant screen-reader upgrades are in fact free. If someone
wants to do an update I'll link to it.
--
Joe Clark | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>;
Expect criticism if you top-post
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Feb 20, 2006 3:20PM
Subject: RE: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | Next message →
> Some significant screen-reader upgrades are in fact free. If
> someone wants to do an update I'll link to it.
I agree that the updates are cheaper than described, but "free" is not
accurate either. When you buy a license for JAWS (just one example) you
can purchase a SMA (software maintenance agreement) for the next two
major versions for $120. It's only free if you forgot that you already
paid for it!
AWK
From: Steven Faulkner
Date: Feb 20, 2006 7:00PM
Subject: RE: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | Next message →
You also seem to be forgetting that for screen reader users on a limited
income (e.g disability pension) what sounds cheap to you Joe is actually
a lot of money.
I had a look on the web and found a few upgrade prices;
found on http://www.greymatter.com/buyers/131178 a UK web site.
JAWS for Windows [7.0 Professional Edition Upgrade from v4.5 and Prior
Professional Windows 95/98/Me/NT/2000/XP Pro]
COST: ?524.03
JAWS for Windows [7.0 Standard Edition Upgrade from v4.0 and Prior
Standard Windows 95/98/Me/NT/2000/XP Pro]
COST: ?396.07
found on http://www.woodlaketechnologies.com/detail.asp?bid=84
Jaws for Windows Standard UPGRADE - Version 3.7 or earlier to Current
(#FRD182) US$400.00
Jaws for Windows Standard UPGRADE - Version 4.0 to Current (#FRD183)
US$360.00
with regards
Steven Faulkner
Web Accessibility Consultant
vision australia - information & library service
454 Glenferrie Road
Kooyong Victoria 3144
Phone: (613) 9864 9281
Fax: (613) 9864 9210
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.accessibleinfo.org.au | www.wat-c.org
Download the Web Accessibility Toolbar
[http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/ais/toolbar/]
Vision Australia was formed through the merger of the Royal Blind
Society
NSW, the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind, Vision Australia
Foundation and the National Information & Library Service.
ABN: 67 108 391 831 ACN: 108 391 831
>
From: Wayne Dick
Date: Feb 20, 2006 11:30PM
Subject: Re: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | Next message →
Dear Joe Clark,
I don't see much purpose served in
sending this to the whole list.
Regarding PDF- I am open to the
possibility that PDF can be made
accessible, but I'm having trouble
making it work for me. Maybe it can be
made as accessible as XHTML but it is
not there yet in my experience.
There are several reasons for my
skepticism.
1) The standard for equal access to
data is that the data should have the
same quality with the same ease of
access and use. Now, for able bodied
users, access to PDF is free. It costs
me lots of extra time and more than
zero money. That's not equal.
Getting second rate data that costs
extra money irks me especially since
PDF owes much of its success to the
large audience created by cost free
use by able bodied users.
2) I like to change the font family,
font size, line spacing, word spacing
and letter spacing. Changing color
also helps. Most people with central
retina damage like these
transformations too, as well as having
the option of listening and reading
simultaneously. WebAdapt2Me from IBM
does this, especially with some help
from personal style sheets.
I cannot get the change of font style,
line spacing, word spacing and letter
spacing with PDF. Please help me know
how if it is possible. Do I need to
learn a new type of CSS or XSL for PDF
to do it? Do such transformations
exist? I am an expert any way you look
at it, and I find PDF a much greater
challenge than XHTML. How does a
genuine amateur do it?
Note: Neither WebAdapt2Me nor personal
style sheets are free in money or
time, but it's a one time expense that
seems to increase in value as markup,
style sheet languages and user agents
improve. So, I don't begrudge the
cost because I can read effectively
with these tools. Can I have the same
expectation with PDF?
3) While MathML is not complete and
not even the ACM uses it, it can be
translated easily to just about any
medium human beings use to read. Right
now I can't make any sense out of
mathematics in PDF. Am I missing
something? Is a way to enlarge
notation gracefully and to read it out
loud together available for PDF?
Pease let me know. It would really
improve my life. I'd really love to
start reading Foundations of
Algorithms and Computing with some
degree of comfort. While PDF may work
pretty well with screen readers, as a
user of seriously modified print
(size, spacing and font family), I
find PDF much harder to use.
I think there is one other problem
with PDF that is not as prevalent as
with XHTML. It seems even easier to
produce bad PDF than bad XHTML. There
are teachers and professors all around
the world banging out terrible PDF for
class reading and assignments.
Scientists really like it for
notation. Hot discoveries usually
come out in bad PDF.
I stand as living proof that partially
sighted people can understand and
create advanced mathematics, but it is
not easy. I think PDF is really
making the situation worse.
So, Joe, I appreciate your views on
PDF. It can be made accessible, but
it will have to improve a lot before I
don't feel sick when I see the file
extension PDF on a hyperlink.
Wayne Dick PhD
Chair Computer Engineering and
Computer Science,
Director WebAdapt2Me Project at CSULB
From: Wayne Dick
Date: Feb 20, 2006 11:40PM
Subject: Re: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | Next message →
Oops! I thought I sent that last one
to Joe alone, but blasted it to the
universe. Sorry...
Wayne Dick PhD
Chair Computer Engineering and
Computer Science
Director WebAdapt2Me Project at CSULB
From: L
Date: Feb 21, 2006 2:10AM
Subject: RE: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | Next message →
Joe Clark wrote:
"Some significant screen-reader upgrades are in fact free."
In the case of Jaws, some interim patch upgrades are provided free of charge, however conventional version upgrades are not.
At best it's possible to purchase an SMA, allowing you two full version upgrades, which will cost you $120, or if you have the misfortune to be on the UK side of Freedom Scientific's pricing policy,
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Feb 21, 2006 8:40AM
Subject: RE: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | Next message →
> In the case of Jaws
Joe, correct me if I am wrong, but I think Joe's point was that there
are several OTHER (free!) screen readers out there other than the
overpriced JAWS.
Yes, JAWS is expensive. Yes, there are free alternatives.
-Darrel
From: L
Date: Feb 21, 2006 9:30AM
Subject: RE: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | Next message →
Darrell Austin wrote:
"Joe, correct me if I am wrong, but I think Joe's point was that there are several OTHER (free!) screen readers out there other than the overpriced JAWS."
Certainly there are, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but Joe's reply was in direct response to a comment made about Jaws. Joe further went on to say:
"Some significant screen-reader upgrades are in fact free."
Joe's comments suggest that he was referring to screen readers other than the free ones. Surely *all* upgrades for free screen readers are free, not just *"some significant" ones?
Of course, only Joe can confirm his original point, so let's not get bogged down in this. *Smile.
Regards,
L
From: Derek Featherstone
Date: Feb 22, 2006 7:20AM
Subject: Re: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | Next message →
On 2/20/06, Wayne Dick wrote:
>3) While MathML is not complete and not even the ACM uses it, it can
>be translated easily to just about any medium human beings use to
>read. Right now I can't make any sense out of mathematics in PDF.
This is a good point and raises the issue that I think is most often
glossed over from Joe's PDF article on A List Apart.
"There are too many PDFs on the web. Most every PDF should be something
other than PDF."
Source: <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/pdf_accessibility/#overused>;
Is this not a case where PDF as a delivery format is not the correct
choice? Based on your experience, wouldn't you say that PDF is not
suitable for the delivery of mathematical equations or notations?
This isn't the fault of PDF, though. The responsibility here lies with
the author that is choosing to publish in a format that is not suitable
for their content.
Best regards,
Derek.
--
Derek Featherstone = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
tel: 613-599-9784 1-866-932-4878 (toll-free in North America)
Web Development: http://www.furtherahead.com
Personal: http://www.boxofchocolates.ca
From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Feb 22, 2006 9:00AM
Subject: Re: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | Next message →
What are Adobe doing about making mathematical equations and notations in PDF files,
accessible to screen reader users?
Or is this the responsibility of Freedom Scientific et al?
Josh
Joshue O Connor
Web Accessibility Consultant
**Centre for Inclusive Technology (CFIT)* *
National Council for the Blind of Ireland
Website:http://www.cfit.ie
E-Mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Tel: +353 1 8821915
Derek Featherstone wrote:
> On 2/20/06, Wayne Dick wrote:
>
>
>>3) While MathML is not complete and not even the ACM uses it, it can
>>be translated easily to just about any medium human beings use to
>>read. Right now I can't make any sense out of mathematics in PDF.
>
>
> This is a good point and raises the issue that I think is most often
> glossed over from Joe's PDF article on A List Apart.
>
> "There are too many PDFs on the web. Most every PDF should be something
> other than PDF."
>
> Source: <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/pdf_accessibility/#overused>;
>
> Is this not a case where PDF as a delivery format is not the correct
> choice? Based on your experience, wouldn't you say that PDF is not
> suitable for the delivery of mathematical equations or notations?
>
> This isn't the fault of PDF, though. The responsibility here lies with
> the author that is choosing to publish in a format that is not suitable
> for their content.
>
> Best regards,
> Derek.
From: Derek Featherstone
Date: Feb 22, 2006 3:40PM
Subject: Re: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | Next message →
On 2/22/06, Joshue O Connor wrote:
>What are Adobe doing about making mathematical equations and notations
> in PDF files, accessible to screen reader users?
>
>Or is this the responsibility of Freedom Scientific et al?
Does it have to be either party's responsibility? Again - I suggest that
the highest responsibility lies with the author in choosing the most
accessible format available. And if PDF isn't it, then the author should
not choose to publish in that format.
Sure, its possible that Adobe could add some form of MathML support into
PDF. Sure, its possible that Freedom Scientific et al, could add even
*more* capabilities into their products that are already overloaded with
features to compensate for crappy web authoring.
But honestly - would this not be best left as an authoring issue?
Cheers,
Derek.
--
Derek Featherstone = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
tel: 613-599-9784 1-866-932-4878 (toll-free in North America)
Web Development: http://www.furtherahead.com
Personal: http://www.boxofchocolates.ca
From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Feb 23, 2006 3:20AM
Subject: Re: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | Next message →
> Does it have to be either party's responsibility?
IMO as Adobe are the creators of the PDF format they do have some responsibility to
ensure that the needs of all of their users are met. And the same goes for screen reader
vendors.
> Again - I suggest that
>> the highest responsibility lies with the author in choosing the most
>> accessible format available. And if PDF isn't it, then the author should
>> not choose to publish in that format.
Yes. You are absolutely right, it's best to use the right tool for the right job, and that surely is the responsibility of the author. However, PDF files are used for such a wide range of purposes they are often seen (wrongly) as a "catch all" format suitable for every purpose. It wasn't that long ago that in Ireland they were seen as an "accessible format" and then used widely in government and other public services. This was pre-PDF "accessibility".
Now with the promise of more accessible PDF's via tagging etc, content creators may feel they have*more" of a license to use them, even though PDF may still fall short in certain areas, such as mathematical notation etc. Content creators also may not be aware of this, or how to make their PDF's accessible. This is not the fault of Adobe, and again the responsibility for correctly authoring content is with the author.
Re:Maths notation, I would suggest that for this new PDF accessibility "quantum leap" to be truly successful then Adobe will have to accommodate all possible uses of their PDF format and address these issues, and make PDF as accessible as possible. I am sure this is what they wish to achieve anyway. but it is important to get it right because of the ubiquity of the PDF format.
>> But honestly - would this not be best left as an authoring issue?
Let's meet halfway on this one :)
Josh
Derek Featherstone wrote:
> On 2/22/06, Joshue O Connor wrote:
>
>
>>What are Adobe doing about making mathematical equations and notations
>>in PDF files, accessible to screen reader users?
>>
>>Or is this the responsibility of Freedom Scientific et al?
>
>
> Does it have to be either party's responsibility? Again - I suggest that
> the highest responsibility lies with the author in choosing the most
> accessible format available. And if PDF isn't it, then the author should
> not choose to publish in that format.
>
> Sure, its possible that Adobe could add some form of MathML support into
> PDF. Sure, its possible that Freedom Scientific et al, could add even
> *more* capabilities into their products that are already overloaded with
> features to compensate for crappy web authoring.
>
> But honestly - would this not be best left as an authoring issue?
>
> Cheers,
> Derek.
From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Feb 23, 2006 6:10AM
Subject: RE: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | Next message →
Wayne Dick wrote:
> Oops! I thought I sent that last one
> to Joe alone, but blasted it to the
> universe. Sorry...
>
That's OK Wayne - nice to see a "real world" response to a position that
is based as much in bravado and personal opinion as it is in reality. I
can pound a nail in the wall with the heal of my shoe, and most often I
will be relatively successful - this does not negate the fact that
hammers exist for a reason...
JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist
WATS.ca - Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053
From: Wayne Dick
Date: Feb 23, 2006 3:30PM
Subject: Re: Screen-reader updates
← Previous message | No next message
My original note to the list was not
intended. This message is.
At this point I would like to make a
comment to the list on PDF.
I do not believe that the burden of
responsibility for accessibility lies
exclusively with the document author.
The first responsibility of a format
manufacturer is to enable equal access
to all users. That means everyone
should be able to read public
publications in a file format at
approximately the same cost over the
price of the user's basic system.
Now, for a disabled person, their
basic system cost is more expensive.
That just is. However, disabled
users should not have to pay extra (in
time or money) to read a file format
that is free to able bodied readers.
PDF is the worst offender in this
category. PDF reading is free for
able bodied and it is costly for
disabled. That is cost above the cost
of the basic system. Consider the
following honestly. Would PDF ever
have gotten its foothold in digital
libraries, with manufacturer's user
manuals or with governments and
businesses if users had to pay for
Acrobat Reader? Maybe Adobe should
charge $25.00 for Acrobat Reader and
use the revenue to pay for real
accommodation. Of course, a lot more
venders would choose HTML if they knew
that many users did not own a free
copy of Acrobat Reader.
Adobe has claimed that PDF is a
"default standard", but PDF does not
play by the rules of a real standard.
W3C has created real standards. The
difference is that W3C expends lots of
energy and time making its standards
effective. The PDF community has
waited for accessibility to be
demanded.
The user agent, Acrobat Reader,
produced by Adobe really does not
provide equal access in quality.
Listening is good when you have no
other option, but a lot of material is
terse and requires some kind of static
medium so the information can be
absorbed at the reader's pace of
understanding. That is why static
formats like Braille and alternative
print are needed. Adobe provides only
one access for individuals with
limited or no sight, voice output.
While able bodied users can print and
annotate their documents, disabled
users are tethered to a moving show
with limited opportunity to stop and
ponder. Is that equal access?
The format manufacturer, its author,
has the responsibility to make a
format that is accessible to the level
of the highest current public
standards. It is also a
manufacturer's responsibility to make
it easier to produce accessible
material than inaccessible material.
This applies most to manufacturers of
authoring tools, but manufacturers of
file formats must take responsibility
if it is trivial to produce and
disseminate documents that are
profoundly inaccessible. PDF images
of text documents are major violators.
Adobe's excellent image compression
algorithms make this process
efficient, and it is used extensively.
My purpose is not to bash Adobe or
PDF. Adobe's contributions to
computing are among the greatest in
the industry, and PDF is a brilliant
format. I would just like to read my
information at a comparable level of
quality, effectiveness and price.
That is not too much to ask. Right
now the PDF community does not make
that possible. There is the
responsibility of document authors and
publishers, but there is also
significant responsibility from
manufacturers of PDF authoring tools
and user agents. Finally, there is
the responsibility of the author of
PDF. If Adobe wants PDF to be a
standard then it should treat it like
a real standard. PDF should be as
accountable as HTML and it should not
provide easy ways for incompetent or
cheap authors and publishers to evade
their accessibility obligations.
The truth is that Adobe should step up
to the accessibility challenge with
the same visionary effort it has given
to all its endeavors. We need their
brilliance working for us. With all
the baby boomers hitting old age, the
market for accessible reading might
just be worth more than anyone
expects.
Wayne Dick PhD
Chair Computer Engineering and
Computer Science
Director WebAdapt2Me Project at CSULB