On 8/6/07, zwetan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > games does not adapt to screen reader, whatever technology you put behind it (even if this time you choose the Flash player as your guinea pig).
This generalization flies in the face of the evidence. There are already many games accessible to screen reader users. Here's a simple Flash example: http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility/2006/08/two_accessible_flash_games_whi.html > And to support this view do you know any screenreader for xbox 360, > Wii, PS3 ? No. But how would the absence of a screen reader on those consoles be evidence that "games does not adapt to screen reader", rather than evidence of console manufacturers and game developers failing to provide accessibility? For a long time, Windows didn't have an effective screen reader, but that wasn't evidence that Windows couldn't theoretically be used with a screen reader. > So now let's return to Flash player on such devices, > what kind of flash content do you find the most on PSP and cell phones ? > games (ok small games) Even if we pretended that games could never be made screen reader accessible, that is /not/ the case with other uses of Flash, such as online videos. Here screen reader users would benefit from Flash's captioning and audio description facilities. > Now tell me what is your point exactly ? > that because the flash player is not open source, > you can not implement screen reader functionality > on such devices ? That clearly is /not/ my point. As I said before: "We're not talking about open sourcing the Adobe Flash Player. We're talking about opening up the Flash specification to implementers of /other/ players." > as I said this is a joke. > not that impaired people does not have screen reader support, > but to think that screen reader support would automagically > allow impaired people to play games designed for non-impaired people > in the first place. That is a straw man argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Screen reader support would remove an unnecessary technological barrier to designing games for both people with and without visual impairments. > Take a computer desktop, fully supporting a screen reader, and lucky you running on an OS/browser that have a flash player that do support screen reader, now take a flash game to run on that system, unless that flash game (game design and game play) is especially oriented toward impaired people the screen reader would simply not make that game playable. That's doubtless true of some games, but a demonstrably false generalization. People with visual disabilities adapt to systems not designed for non-visual access all the time. I already gave you an example of a blind user playing Lord of the Rings on the PSP! > So to make my point clear, you're blaming the technology > (the flash player running the flash game) > when you should blame the content provider > (the creator/designer of the game). How can content providers create Flash content accessible on platforms other than Internet Explorer if the Flash players are not accessible to assistive technology? > Again you're blaming the technology (an easy target) and not the content provider, based on this article > http://www.digital-web.com/articles/ten_reasons_clients_dont_care_about_accessibility/ > I can find a lot of web site that do use only HTML and no flash that brag to be accessible and are not, so in this case I should blame the HTML ? When content is inaccessible, often more than one party is at fault: 1) The W3C is at fault where it failed to include accessibility features in HTML. Adobe is at fault where it failed to include accessibility features in Flash. 2) HTML authors are at fault where they have failed to use HTML's accessibility featureset. Likewise, Flash authors are at fault where they have failed to use Flash's accessibility featureset. 3) HTML browser developers are at fault where they have failed to make their software accessible to assistive technology. Likewise, Flash player developers are at fault where they have failed to make their software accessible to assistive technology. However, because HTML is an open specification to browser implementers but Flash is a closed specification to other player implementers, Adobe are /additionally/ at fault for severely inhibiting other implementers from making their software accessible to assistive technology. Consequently, Microsoft and Mozilla deserve equal blame for their browsers' accessibility failures. But Adobe deserves more blame than Gnash for the accessibility failures of their Flash players. > but having a screen reader that make you being able to play a game > is a totally different thing. Totally different thing how? Maybe you think screen readers merely "read the screen", but that's only part of how screen readers work. It would be more accurate to think of screen readers as adding aural or braille interfaces to other software. > > This analogy is irrelevant to my argument, which is that Adobe is > > failing to provide consistent functionality. > In my opinion Adobe is not failing at all to provide > consistent functionality, but as you're focusing > mainly on screen reader support, of course for this > subject the flash player is not consistent. This is a self-contradiction, but you've conceded the main point: "the flash player is not consistent". > But take an open source flahs player as gnash, does it succeed better at making screen reader support ? No. That's because Gnash developer time is /wasted/ by Adobe's licensing in clean room reverse-engineering even more basic functionality (e.g. playing videos). If the Gnash developers could base their implementation on the specification, their other work would be a lot faster and they would have more time to implement accessibility features. PDF provides a good contrast with this situation. Apple bundles a PDF reading application with Mac OS X that screen reader users prefer over Adobe Reader. > are you a contributor to gnash and help implement screen support as you wish it should work ? I am not a contributor to Gnash. > would you be ready to donate all your screen support code > to Adobe so they can use it and improve the screen reader support in flash ? If /I/ had such code, sure, but I don't. IANAL, but Gnash is GPL, so it might be difficult to reuse their code in a closed source applications. > > It's pretty obvious that if you're a screen reader user who prefers Firefox, an open source player you can use is better than a closed source player you can't. > that's not obvious at all sorry. > I'm pro open source, but just based on the fact that a software > is open source that does not mean at all that the software > is better than a closed source counter part. That's another strawman argument. I am NOT claiming that any open source player is better by virtue of being open source. I am arguing that any player (open source OR closed source) that works is better than any player (open OR closed) that does not work. The Adobe Flash Player doesn't work. The fact that the Flash specification is closed makes it very, very hard to produce an alternative player that does. Similarly, a (free or expensive) car I can drive is better than a (free or expensive) car I can't. > > We're not talking about open sourcing the Adobe Flash Player. We're > > talking about opening up the Flash specification to implementers of > > /other/ players. > > yes so /other/ players can implement what they think is missing > and then generate flash player branches that in the end would > kill the flash player ubiquity. I don't see how "the flash player ubiquity", except in so far as it promotes ubiquitous functionality for Flash content. Adobe Flash Player and clean-room reverse-engineered alternatives are unlikely to ever provide that; they certainly haven't so far. > I totally understand that people are lobbying for their own interest, > 3D in flash, flash running on AMD64, more screen reader support, etc. > > but here my point is whatever the flash spec is not open enougth, > Adobe and before Macromedia did support things or try to support > things that are not necessary directly usefull to their own business, I hold them to the same standards I hold anyone else, myself included. > it's kind of pi** me off big time that people just don't give them > credits for what they already supporting. I feel differently. But our personal feelings about the level of support provided are not especially relevant to a discussion of the effects of the license. My point is simply that opening the spec would facilitate better support. > The flash player do support screen readers, > ok not since v1, ok not on every OS out there > ok it's not perfect, but still Adobe is not ignoring this > particular problem It sure seems like they are treating it as low priority, judging by how their efforts have not kept pace with developments like VoiceOver and Firefox accessibility. But whether they are "ignoring" it or not is irrelevant; whether the end product can actually be used with assistive technology is all that matters. If the specification was open, it would be much easier for other implementations to provide the assistive technology support that Adobe is not providing. > so instead of just ranting because this or that is not working just do as any other guy do provide them feedback and wishlist, or even better show them how they could implement this or that screenreader (cf above about contributing to gnash). It would be a lot easier to contribute accessibility support to Gnash if the Flash specification was open, wouldn't it? In any case, I wouldn't be a good candidate for doing this, as I have very little of the relevant expertise, and non-Flash-related activities that have a higher personal priority for me. But I can comment on the damaging effects of Adobe's licencing, and I don't think it's "ranting" to do so. > > Neither Zárate nor I are talking about adding missing features to > > Flash; we're talking about providing consistent functionality across > > platforms. > > that's the problem, you see inconsistent functionalities, > me I see consistent functionalities. You've already conceded that "the flash player is not consistent". > I personally don't want a fracture in the flash player implementation, There already are fractures. IMHO the licencing is bound to exacerbate those fractures. Better policies could reduce them and bring much needed benefits like a more consistent accessibility implementation. > even if your main lobby is screen reader support in flash, and nothing wrong with that, I think it would be in the best interest of disabled users to face only one flash player, in fact the "one flash player" thing I think it's in the best interest of everyone. A single Flash player they cannot use is useless to VoiceOver and Orca users. A different Flash player that they could use would be useful to them. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
