I'd even go far as to say that in the arena of music software (of all kinds and for all platforms), things have been getting much less accessible now than they ever have been. Combine this with the fact that, at least in the synthesis arena, hardware units are less favored than software only ones, the picture is pretty bleak. In the early 90s, you could go out and buy a hardware synth module or something and, yes as a blind person you probably couldn't access but a small percentage of its features, but you could get sound out of it. Much of the software only stuff is so inaccessible that you can't even make anything happen at all, even though your host app might be extremely accessible (i.e. Cakewalk's Sonar with Jaws or Window-eyes and the right scripts/set files is pretty damn accessible).
So, not to complain more, but just to say that something needs to change, especially in the arena of music software. Digital technology is extremely flexable and powerful, and so many things are possible. However, as a blind person, I feel that fewer and fewer things are possible as software gets more complex and more visually based. For an example of something really kind of "way out there" but fascinating is this: http://www.netjam.org/projects/quoth/ You'll have to go there to read about it, but essentially its an interactive fiction system written in SmallTalk which you can teach to play music. The problem is that its completely inaccessible. OK, to be fair the actual system is not available, but the smalltalk interpreter upon which it is built (called Squeak) is completely unusable. You can't find anything in the window; literally the only thing you can do with it is to close its window. This means they used no native widgets to build any part of it, except perhaps the very basic skeliton (that's why alt+f4 works). So why did they do this? Why didn't they use native widgets, native toolkits, and get MSAA or ATSPI or Apple Accessibility for free? SO my point is not to slam those folks for not making their system accessible, but just to point out that accessibility (or lack thereof) is far less about technology than it is about people. People are still 90% ignorant about accessibility. They have no idea that a blind person can use a computer, let alone how it might be done. Computer geeks and non-geeks alike, it doesn't matter. People just don't know. Maybe having a screen reader built into OSX will help this state of affairs, but somehow I doubt it. Maybe some sighted person will play with it for two seconds, then realize that she could get things done about 10 times faster via good old point and click, and that's the end of the experiment. Of course, its great for developers wishing to build accessible software, since the screen reader is sitting there patiently waiting for someone to turn it on and test... Sorry for going on so long. We've all heard it many times before, and I'm certainly not articulate enough to say anything really new here. Happy 2008! -- Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marshall F. Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS X by theblind" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:27 PM Subject: Re: ProTools: The path to accessibility And it's not just Pro Tools, I've tried other applications that are no more accessible now than they were under Jaguar. That's more than 6 years and things in the third party area don't seem to be getting any better. Add to this that Apple has been producing tools like Interface Builder and XCode and I'm not very sympathetic to the third party developers. Marshall On Jan 8, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Shaun Jones wrote: > The path to accessibility has been very long with minimal results. > Can I as a blind Mac/Windows user pick up a copy of every version of > Pro Tools and use it as a sighted person would? Are there scripts? > What results have you presented for Tiger users? Where was the beta > test? Now that Leopard has been released, where is the Leopard > accessible version of Pro Tools? If I am re missed in my statement > or questions then please correct me. If I can't pick up a accessible > copy today, then how much longer should we wait? What they need is a > Class Action suit to bring accessibility into the DNA of there > software. Please don't tell me about barriers and how much work has > been put into making this accessible if I can't buy a copy right now > that works with the Mac running Leopard. I like the efforts started > back in 1992, but it is 2008 and a change must come. Accessibility > must be in developers mind from the ground up. If Apple can develop > a OS to run on Intel chips from the ground up, then surely the > hottest, best selling professional audio company can do it as well. > Lets be real when it comes to what we want. It takes 2 seconds for a > person to change his or her mind and make a change. Evadentataly > someone isn't talking to the right person because after 16 years of > talking and petitioning we should be able to test this product with > a download or a disc right now. My question to you on list is, can we? > On Jan 8, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Rick Boggs wrote: > >>> Attention all audio enthusiasts and engineers interested in using >>> Pro Tools. In light of the recent plea transmitted to this list, >>> I am compelled to clarify the very important history and ongoing >>> advocacy efforts on behalf of blind Pro Tools users. Please >>> consider this information before taking any action called for in >>> the recent post to this list. >>> >>> >>> Many of you are aware of the proven track record that I have in >>> working with Digidesign to make Pro Tools accessible for blind >>> users. In fact, for several years, Digidesign published a story >>> about our successful work in this area on their web site. For >>> those who don't know, in 1992 I initiated a dialog with the >>> leadership at Digidesign about possible accessibility for blind >>> users. By 1994, I successfully arranged a test at the Digidesign >>> lab which determined that outSPOKEN, the Mac screen reader at the >>> time, would NOT function with Pro Tools. Specifically, the Mac >>> would not even boot properly while both outSPOKEN and Pro Tools >>> were loaded on the machine. However, through respectful, >>> professional, assertive communication, I was pleased to find that >>> Digidesign voluntarily made changes to a "system init" file which >>> resolved the conflict and allowed blind users to access Pro >>> Tools. The change was made with the launch of the next generation >>> of the Pro Tools software at that time and appeared simultaneously >>> with other improvements to the software. >>> >>> Since then, I launched the "BlindProducers.com" web site and made >>> special arrangements with the Digidesign sales department and a >>> Los Angeles vendor to be able to sell Pro Tools systems to blind >>> individuals with an appropriate package and sufficient support to >>> make use of Pro Tools realistic for blind users. I facilitated >>> the purchase of Pro Tools for blind clients of the department of >>> rehabilitation after they in fact purchased my own system. I even >>> later hired blind audio engineers in my studio to work as Pro >>> Tools engineers. Digidesign is well aware of all of these facts. >>> Jerry Halatyn and I arranged to meet in person with the product >>> development team at Digidesign and demonstrated how blind users >>> interacted with Pro Tools 5.1.3 versus what the barriers are for >>> using Pro Tools 6.0 and later. We have established a rapport with >>> key leadership at Digidesign over the years and are working to >>> help them resolve some SIGNIFICANT technical barriers to >>> accessibility. We can discuss those technical details on this list >>> at a later time. >>> >>> In the interest of preserving the good will at Digidesign, and >>> with respect for their past record of making necessary >>> accomodations, we ask that all interested audio enthusiasts and >>> professionals allow us to continue to pursue the existing path >>> toward accessibility for Pro Tools. >>> >>> Nobody has a greater interest in finding a resolution than myself >>> or Jerry since both of us earn a living exclusively by making >>> recordings with or Pro Tools systems which are now quite old and >>> out of date. >>> >>> Please note that rather than bombarding some clerk at Digidesign >>> with separate and random expressions of frustration, Jerry and I >>> organized a public display of support for a resolution with the >>> Pro Tools Petition at www.ProToolsPetition.org which did render a >>> response from Digidesign. >>> >>> We ask that all brainstorming on this subject be done in an open >>> forum and that NO ACTION be taken without careful consideration of >>> the history and progress made thus far. >>> >>> Why not stick with what has worked folks? Ask yourselves how much >>> you really know about what the technical problems are that face >>> Digidesign this time around. I assure you the barriers are >>> significant. >>> >>> Rick Boggs >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > Marshall F. scott University of Utah - CVRTI 95 South 2000 East Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Phone: (801) 587-9523 Fax: (801) 581-3128 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: scott9576a
