taken from the Braille Monitor, February 2015
Responses to "What Is the Cost of a Free Product?"
by Gary Wunder
In the November 2014 issue of the Braille Monitor, we ran an article
entitled "What Is the Cost of a Free Product?" It was written by Tim
Connell, and I dare say that it was sent to me because I had been trying to
get major screen reader developers to tell their side of the story by
explaining the struggles faced by for-profit companies in an ever-changing
market, one which offers far fewer consumers than most businesses hope to
find for their products. I thought it important to discuss the case that
can be made for the for-profit screen reader development that has long been
the way those of us who are blind have gotten screen access and many other
blindness-related technologies, especially since we have devoted
considerable space to low-cost or free screen reading solutions. My hope
was that the article we ran would stimulate discussion, and, after some
gentle prodding from me, this it did. That gentle prodding took the form of
a question: If access to technology is so important to us, why hasn't there
been more discussion about the models of screen reader development reviewed
in Tim Connell's article?
Most who commented did not attempt to address the three major funding
models currently used for screen reader development and reviewed by
Connell. Instead, they responded to what they saw as an attack on NVDA, the
Nonvisual Desktop Access program developed and maintained by NV Access.
While the Braille Monitor cannot hope to print each of the responses
generated, there are two that are particularly thought-provoking and add
significantly to the discussion of how we will continue to have access to
information that appears on the screens of computers, tablets, and
telephones. Here, with slight editing, our responses are taken from the
National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science mailing list. The
first is from Aaron Cannon, who apologizes for not being articulate and
then proceeds to acquit himself very well in putting forward his point of
view. Here is what he says:
[PHOTO CAPTION: Aaron Cannon]
I think the reason we haven't seen more arguments with Tim's article
is that, frankly, his main points are hard to track. I can't complain too
much, though, since I suspect that he writes much more clearly than I do.
But let me let Tim speak for himself:
The work that the developers of NVDA have done is exceptional.
On a small budget they have developed a really good product and have
provided a free screen reader to many thousands of people around the
world who couldn't previously afford one, especially in developing
countries. Their technical skills and dedication are to be applauded;
however, I have a problem with the funding model they have chosen.
Philanthropic funding is at best a fragile beast, and it often doesn't
extend to covering services like training and support, which can be
the most important components of accessibility (especially in
education). The bigger issue of equity and why we accept such a
fundamental right as access to a computer to be at the whim of
philanthropic generosity should be of tremendous concern. Do we
welcome it simply because the recipients are people with a disability?
Why is this particular group of people not worthy of a business model
that guarantees standards of support, service, and viability? The
developers of NVDA need investors, not handouts.
Perhaps my brain just isn't working right this morning, but I am
having a hard time following his objections to NVDA. If I understand it
right, he is saying that the funding model for NVDA is fragile, so we
shouldn't trust it. He also seems to be arguing that it's based on charity,
and so beneath us, and besides, it doesn't allow for user support and
training. If my reading is correct, I remain unconvinced. NVDA support is
available from various organizations for a fee. JAWS users, on the other
hand, end up also paying for support, but they do so up-front, whether they
need it or not. Training is also available for a fee, but that's certainly
not unique to NVDA. JAWS does come with some training materials, but
similar materials are also available for free for NVDA.
I agree that NVDA funding is more fragile than we should like, but
much of what we who are blind rely on is philanthropic in nature. And, if
one source of funding dries up, another one is found. Anyway, I don't see
traditional sources of investment funding being substantially more reliable
than philanthropic ones. Investors/donors come, investors/donors go, and
organizations either find new ones, figure out a way to do without, or
fail. So far NV Access seems to have been able to find new donors when
needed.
Consider what would happen if FS [Freedom Scientific, the developer of
JAWS] and NV Access both went under, and all the developers moved on to
bigger and better things (or at least things that would provide them with a
paycheck). JAWS would be gone. Your already-installed copies would probably
work, but there would be no way to install the full version on new
machines. NVDA, on the other hand, would still be available. Not only would
it still be available to install, but it would be available to improve,
fix, and whatever else someone wanted to do with it, within the bounds of
the GPL [general public license]. It's even possible that a new group of
developers would come along and keep the project going.
In short, JAWS belongs to FS. NVDA belongs, in a very literal sense,
to everyone. I'd much rather see money invested into something I own than
into something I don't. That's all for now.
Aaron Cannon
[PHOTO CAPTION: Steve Jacobson]
So there you have a thoughtful and articulate response to one of the
concerns in Connell's article. This was followed by several posts, the one
which follows being by Steve Jacobson. He currently serves as the vice
president of the NFB in Computer Science and holds the same office in the
affiliate of the NFB of Minnesota. He has been employed by the 3M company
as a programmer for many years and is currently a Lead Data Quality
Analyst. Here is what he says:
This article and the issues it raises are very important in my
opinion. I think we have a somewhat false sense of security regarding our
ability to use computers and access software in many ways.
First, I did not interpret anything Tim said in his article as
minimizing the efforts of those working on NVDA. I certainly keep a copy on
my computer as a means to help me out when my main screen reader hangs up,
and NVDA has a lot of power. My interpretation of his point was more like
this: How would it go over if sighted people on the job had to depend upon
volunteers to build and support their computer monitors? That just wouldn't
be accepted. Our screen readers are our computer monitors, and I think he
was asking why we should expect anything less for something that is so
important.
Those of you who are working for someone else are likely very aware of
how terribly fragile our accessibility is. If you are in full control over
the software you use, the picture is a good bit better because you can
control what you use and could, for example, pick software that works with
NVDA. Where I work, I regularly use two programs that work fairly well with
JFW [JAWS for Windows] and Window-Eyes and do not work with NVDA. I am not
blaming NVDA since these are both older pieces of software, but both JAWS
and Window-Eyes are a little more robust and offer some ability for a user
to stretch their functionality more easily than is the case with NVDA.
Since efficient access means money in my pocket, paying the price for a
commercial screen reader is worth it to me. However, that doesn't mean I
would not donate to NVDA, and NVDA has often been better at implementing
modern approaches to accessibility. That is a valuable contribution that
cannot be overstated.
The Wikipedia model for funding was mentioned in another note, and
while I use that resource some, I don't see that as an effective approach
to screen reader development that needs to exist in employment settings
where there is security involved. A screen reader is not a collection of
information that you can crosscheck for accuracy; it is closer to a
computer monitor that bridges software to hardware. I am not arguing that
there are not other funding models to support NVDA that we could consider.
Discussing alternatives is the point to all of this after all.
The commercial screen reader model isn't perfect either. As I see it,
screen readers, including NVDA, are so busy trying to keep up with new
versions of Windows and Microsoft Office that they don't have a lot of
resources to try to innovate. Software and webpages have changed
dramatically over the past ten years, but how information is presented to
the blind has not changed all that much. Even the efforts of screen readers
to take advantage of ARIA [Accessible Rich Internet Applications, a tool
used to tell screen readers how information should be presented when its
presentation is visually obvious but is ambiguous to screen-reading
software] seems to be painful. Large companies like Google and Microsoft
make sweeping changes to their software, provide very basic accessibility
by exposing the information in their changes, and then leave it to the
screen reader developers to make it all work for you and me. The time and
money that they have to spend just to keep up is not insignificant, and a
lot of the money that we pay for upgrades goes to just staying even with
what particularly the large companies change. I have personally witnessed
the time it can take to figure out why something doesn't work right, and it
can be extreme. We expect our screen readers to know when a menu pops up
and to track menu selections as they have been doing for twenty years. If
finances were unlimited-a dream, I know-shouldn't there be a way to
automatically tell us what is important on a webpage in a similar manner?
There are tools we can use, but thinking about what is really important on
a webpage isn't something screen readers really have time to research, and
they have concentrated on what they can get from HTML. But, one has to
wonder, could useful analysis of appearance help us? How about a command to
jump to the text with the largest fonts or analyze text color for example?
What about the third model discussed in Connell's article: building a
screen reader into the operating system? From a technical point of view
this is probably the most sound approach. However, I have the same
reservations that were expressed in the article. I know that there have
been bugs with accessibility both in Microsoft Office and Windows for a few
years that are known to Microsoft. Microsoft sends us updates all the time
to their software and operating system. How often do you run Windows or
Office Update? But some accessibility bugs have to wait for the "next major
release" whatever that means. We have also seen Microsoft leave out or
complicate keystroke access to Office 2013 that can only have happened
because making keystrokes work well isn't a real priority. This is within
their own software, so they have control. While keyboard access is
something some sighted people still use, it still gets what appears to be
casual consideration at best. How can I feel confident that they would
maintain a screen reader over time, and what priority would they give bugs
that might be present in handling competing products? What priority would a
Microsoft screen reader give to Open Office support, for example? Similar
concerns could be asked about Apple, although the environment is somewhat
different. The point is that there are some real drawbacks to all of the
current models. Add to that the fact that software and web development are
extremely dynamic right now and probably will be for some time to come. Now
look at our market size, which is relatively small. Also look at the laws
that require accessibility, which apply mostly to state governments and to
the federal government. These laws have limited applicability in the
private sector, and even in those areas they clearly cover, access is too
often substandard or not available at all. It isn't that efforts are not
being made, but the number of webpages is huge, and the pressure to
continually evolve is great.
As consumers we really need to think about all of this as we move
forward. It is one thing to evaluate all of this in terms of our leisure
activities. Inefficient access can be frustrating, but it is mostly
manageable because we have some control over our environment. But in
particular, how do we deal with websites and software used within parts of
the private sector, where even ADA may not apply completely, and where
"undue burden" may accurately describe the changes that would need to be
made in some cases? These are real challenges that go beyond insulting
one's favorite screen reader or web browser, and this is what we really
need to try to address.
When I attended the first Microsoft Accessibility Summit in 1995 and
when I participated in discussions of the accessibility of JAVA in 1998, I
never dreamed we would still be fighting for accessibility as we must in
2014. There needs to be serious thought as to how we can do better in the
future, and we need to discuss it thoroughly and reasonably.
Best regards,
Steve Jacobson
Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of
mobile phones / Tabs on:
http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in
Search for old postings at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/
To unsubscribe send a message to
accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in
with the subject unsubscribe.
To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please
visit the list home page at
http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
Disclaimer:
1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the
person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity;
2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent
through this mailing list..
