Hello Neil. I read your paper, and I think you're right on the money here. In the case of GPS, I just can't envision a really good software for us that the sighted would like as well. Sure, there are sighted people that would like a GPS that would operate the way most of us would prefer. But, I suspect most of them love and adore pictures. I say I can't envision it, but then this is no flat screen for the 2010 talking here. I didn't think flat screens were possible, and Apple showed me up and figured out how.
Regards, Gigi Eugenia Firth [email protected] On May 9, 2012, at 5:32 AM, Neil Barnfather - TalkNav wrote: > Dear All, > > About a year or so ago now, I wrote the below short paper covering the topic > of Accessibility verse Adaptation. > > Given the discussion recently on a few mailing lists I'm subscribed to about > making various Apps accessible, I thought this might provoke a few > individuals into considering this topic a little more. Quite often I hear > blind and low vision users stating that something should be easily made to > work for us as blind users... Sure, in many instances this is true, but, in > some instances, what we need or require goes beyond simple accessibility > feature sets, and in fact becomes an adaptation. > > I very much welcome any feed back on the below, I hope it may help all of us > to have a moment of reflection over our needs, requirements and expectations. > > When is adaptation more than simple accessibility? > > Up until recently adaptive technology was seen solely as a method of altering > an item, or thing, to make it usable by a blind or low vision user; be it a > device created from the ground up to meet the specific needs of this user > group (e.g. Braille Note) or a multipurpose software package such as JAWS. > > At present a handful of global developers produce the majority of the > technology used by the blind; this primarily encompasses adaptive > technologies as apposed to simply accessible technology. The equipment is > often simply replicating the function or feature of a mainstream device, but > with specifically targeted functionality for the blind user base (defined > controls, tactilely strong, speech output, braille interface). > > > It’s all a number game > > Economically speaking this macro-market has kept the cost of adaptive > technology at a premium; owing to the large overheads and often minuscule > consumer base for these goods. In addition the cost of these goods is often > hyper-inflated due to the additional support and after-sales contacts > associated with the market (rightly or wrongly). This is in addition to > highly expensive pre-sales visits to customers—many of whom often have > neither the monetary means to purchase, or even a genuine requirement for > said item. The costs of bring a product to market increase the overall cost, > and can in part explain the often notable price discrepancy between adaptive > and non-adaptive technology on sale. To put this into perspective, it has > been estimated that pre and after sales support can add in excess of 50% to > the total cost of any product purchased. > > One obvious solution to this situation might be to reduce the pre-sales > visits to those who—after vetting—display a legitimate desire for the > product; simply limiting home demonstrations and maximising the number of > trade shows exhibited at can contribute significantly to reducing overall > expenditure. In addition, support services could be offered in a more limited > manner; with additional support being a premium service for either new users > or those with more complex requirements. > > Focusing specifically on numbers; the market for much adaptive technology is > less than 0.0001% of the sighted equivalent and in many cases less than this. > This means that—usually owing to the failure of the original supplier to > provision for this group—a small and highly specialised elite have assumed > the role of catering for the blind community through adaptation. > > > Behind the times and a brighter future > > When you consider screen reading software packages such as JAWS or Zoom Text, > one can easily follow the process the developers have followed; a steady and > methodical game of catch-up, in which they clamber to make mainstream > software usable for this user group. All this means is that blind users have > always been a few steps—if not more—behind technological developments in most > fields. This has obviously led to a time delay being common place when blind > users attempt to use the latest technology and can often cause difficulties > in the employment sector. In large owing to blind users often not being able > to utilise either the latest software versions—or worse, access bespoke > packages. These include, but are not limited to, new and innovative > technologies utilised in content dispersal such as Ajax, HTML5 and Java—which > can hinder access not only to detailed and comprehensive data but also > fundamental information contained in newspapers or travel applications. > > The recent steps of technology companies (such as Apple) providing access > technology as part of their core functionality has seen the start of a > new—and much anticipated—dawn for this user group. These past few years have > seen Apple include screen reader and magnification tools directly in their > product range (including personal computers, portable media devices). This > technology redefines the market due to it being access technology but not in > itself adaptive; it simply allows access to the product without any > additional software being necessary. Of note is the notion of cost (or > value); many claim this technology is free of charge, but should more > appropriately be seen as inclusive in the cost of the product. With the cost > of many Apple products being in excess of other alternative off-the-shelf > options, it can often be ignored that their offerings—once adaptive elements > are factored in—can be significantly cheaper. > > The major significance of this change is that the technological advancements > are now being made progressively in tandem with the sighted mainstream, or at > least more in-step than previously. This is reflected in the proposed release > of Apple’s new operating system (Lion); upon its release it will be > accessible for all sighted and non-sighted users inclusively. Finally—it > would seem—blind users are at the cutting edge of technological developments > and the enhancements that come with this, and no longer playing catch up with > their sighted peers. > > > Core principles > > Whilst these improvements go a long way to address the discrepancy between > the two markets, this is limited to core components (OS, core applications) > and can give a false impression which is responsible for causing the > widening gap between a users expectation and reality. Whilst blind users are > aquatinted with being considered last with regards to developing technology, > having spent decades inline waiting for their adaptations to be made, the > door to equality has now been partially opened. With this comes a higher > level of expectation and in some ways this has now superseded the reality of > the current state of affairs; leaving to increased frustration with many > technologies remaining inaccessible or completely unusable. > > The opinion of many has been obscured by the notion that when a particular > application is partially accessible it should be relatively easy to make it > completely accessible. An example of this would be the slew of GPS/navigation > tools available on the iOS platform; all of which offer access to their apps > with varying levels of success. The issue is one of accessibility in terms of > gaining access to the on-screen content through technologies such as Apple’s > VoiceOver. > > Where the discontinuity occurs is when accessibility blends with adaptation. > > The latest enhancements to devices such as the iPhone have to some degree or > another masked the distinction between accessibility and adaptation. A prime > example is Google Maps; a popular and free-of-charge navigation aid for iOs > devices. A blind user might rightly, or wrongly, believe that their inability > to use this app is purely based on accessibility issues—they would for the > main part be wrong in this assessment. This is the core problem presented > where accessibility meets adaptation; making a produce accessible can be > relatively simply (labelling buttons, graphics and the like), but in many > cases it is far more complicated. > > A sighted user of Google Maps visually interprets the map with their eyes, > extrapolating the relevant and discarding the excess—what’s ahead of me, > what’s behind me, there’s the petrol station—whereas a blind user has no > ability to do so, and thus requires the app to carry out this interpretation > for them. It should also then present the resulting output in an accessible, > understandable and comprehensible manner. To focus on a key feature of a GPS > app, many blind users would want the system to only report objects of note > ahead of the direction of travel; this is not an accessibility feature but an > adaptation of the core system. The sighted user does not require the app to > carry out this function as they would do it themselves, hence the difference > between issues of outright accessibility and the adaptation of feature set. > Any modifications would in most cases be processor intensive and thus require > better hardware or improvements in regards to resource utilisation within the > software. This is an obvious trade-off in the sense that if a person is not > applying the work-rate then the machine has to step in and contribute > accordingly. > > This issue is broad and with many complications; take for example some very > recent developments such as that of Ariadne GPS, which allows a blind user to > explore a map of their immediate surroundings. This however contains no frame > of reference as to geographical bearings (up, down, left, right). Thus, > whilst the blind user may know the names of the streets around them, they > have no context for this data besides vicinity; simply enabling exploration > of the map by dragging their finger around the screen with VoiceOver reciting > details of locations. > > It is this distinct difference between fair and rightful accessibility > alterations (adjustments) versus actual deliberate and specific modification > (adaptation) that requires appreciating. > > > The best practice > > Simple accessibility alterations can often be implemented at the source code > level and this can be done at a very low cost; making accessibility to all > intense purposes free of charge, or at the least cost-effective to > incorporate easily into the overall unit cost (Apple utilise this paradigm). > To reiterate; if the accessibility elements are coded as a core construct > during the initial design process then this bypasses the potentially huge > costs of insertion after completion. > > In most instance the screen reader is able to access the varied elements of > information on display in the app; however this usually amounts to basic > textual information, buttons and graphics (although this is about their > location, it also covers the concept of labelling to ensure correct usage). A > greater understanding of the concepts of accessibility and adaptation is > required by both user and developer alike. Blind users have a new inflated > expectation of fully inclusive accessibility, whilst software developers are > not only limited by their understanding of the issues present, but a lot of > the time unaware of the blind user’s requirements at all. Not only do > developers need to increase their awareness of accessibility implementation > but also to expand their knowledge and experience so as to cover the needs of > the whole user community. Put simply, application developers would benefit > from a prescribed (and enforceable) accessibility guideline (standard of > compliance). > > The wider issues of adaptation within technology is that developers need to > move beyond the simple implementation of accessibility techniques and embrace > a more in depth and rounded modification process; one borne of consultation > and standardisation. This also ignores the fact that whilst many developers > are meeting these basic standards, many are not and implementing these > standards would hopefully pull more into line. > > What now? > > The reality of today’s market place is that the firms entrenched in the > adaptive technology sphere need to reposition their services; moving from > that of manufacturer per se, to that of modifier. To start working in > consultation with mainstream suppliers, thus enabling them to provide fully > accessible products that also have feature rich alterations to enable broad > usability for the blind user. These methods could include the options for > in-app purchasing of true adaptive layers for use alongside the mainstream > accessibility standards; hopefully removing the need for any secondary > devices at all. > > In conclusion the most prevalent change needs to come from the developers. > With lobbying and encouragement from the government (much like with web > accessibility), as well as larger public bodies and charities, the issue > needs to be conveyed so as accessibility issues are handled correctly, with > only a handful of cases requiring full adaptive changes; those cases include > screen content that is continuously, and dynamically, generated, as well > complex visual implementation (the most obvious product affected by these > being GPS systems). > > > External links > > User Experience - Accessibility (Apple) - > http://developer.apple.com/ue/accessibility/a > > Regards, > > Neil Barnfather > > Talks List Administrator > Twitter @neilbarnfather > www.neilbarnfather.com > www.TheOEF.org > @TheOEF > > TalkNav is a Nuance, Code Factory and Sendero dealer, for all your > accessible phone, PDA and GPS related enquiries visit www.talknav.com > > URL: - www.talknav.com > e-mail: - [email protected] > Phone: - +44 844 999 4199 > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
