Steve,
You raise some excellent and valid points.
First, I was never able to trace exactly where the virus which attacked
my PC came from. The obvious places did not check out and I was left
scratching my head, not even being able to learn from any mistakes I may
have made, aside from the fact that I insisted on using MSE because it
was very accessible, in spite of the fact that I knew that it was
receiving lousy reviews.
It is certainly true that you need at least some level of screen reader
accessibility in order to configure the security program and to know
that you'll be able to interact with it if something is detected, either
to approve or deny a change or just to examine the program's various
scanning activities, schedules, etc. If a program won't speak, no matter
what I do, even with mouse simulation hotkeys, then its high ratings in
the labs won't benefit me and I would feel uncomfortable in using it. In
the case of Kaspersky, it provides me enough accessibility to be usable,
or usable enough. I am able to examine its various results from previous
scans and configure most settings. However, it does contain a variety of
unlabeled buttons but I was able to get some assistance by my sighted
wife explaining them to me as I used the tab key to move across them.
While I use Window-Eyes at work I currently do not have it installed on
my home computer, although that will soon change as I now have Office
2013 and am planning to install the Window-Eyes for Office edition once
I upgrade this machine with Windows 10. It is my hope that I may be able
to use Window-Eyes to reclass or relabel some of Kaspersky's controls
but someone else on this list has already indicated that he was unable
to do this.
I have heard of two lesser-known antivirus programs which sent modified
copies of their software to one or some of the test labs in order to
guarantee that the lab's results would be in their favor. However, there
are several labs which conduct tests on a regular basis by subjecting
these packages to a variety of infections and their test scores gives me
enough confidence to make what I hope is a wise purchasing decision.
Having said that, I acknowledge that the security landscape seems to
change by the hour and today's test results may not mean quite as much
in three days if some new form of malware is released in the wild and
the antimalware program I just happen to be running doesn't fight it
effectively enough and I just might happen to visit a compromised Web
site which has been injected with said malware. Yes, lab test results
can't guarantee that any given program will give you the best protection
in all cases. I just have to read reviews and make a choice and hope
that the choice that I made is the right one. Having said that, before
June 2015 it had been 16 years since my PC was compromised. I suppose
that, if I can make it for another 16 years without being hit, I should
probably count my blessings, continue to make weekly backups and be
thankful.
In closing, I would like to ask if AI Squared has been in dialog with
manufacturers of antimalware software regarding screen reader
accessibility. It would be nice if screen reader developers would try
and work with developers of these packages, rather than just leaving it
up to individual consumers who don't have the same clout or influence. I
in no way am accusing AI Squared of dropping the ball but am just
curious if they have engaged companies like Kaspersky in this
conversation. I admit that I am growing a bit tired of people
recommending a security package to a blind consumer because it works
well with their screen reader rather than the fact that it works well to
protect their computer.
David Goldfield,
Assistive Technology Specialist
Feel free to visit my Web site
www.davidgoldfield.info
On 8/7/2015 9:43 AM, Steve Jacobson via Talk wrote:
David,
First, I am sorry to hear that you had to deal with an infection. Did you
ever get any idea where you picked it up?
I have struggled with the question of accessibility versus ratings and would
be curious to here your thoughts on a couple if issues. First, I wonder if
not being able to adequately interact with a highly rated package isn't
going to reduce its effectiveness. If I can't use the interface, am I going
to set up the options in a way that is most effective? If I can't read a
warning message when a virus is encountered, am I going to make the right
choice? I don't know if the above would apply to Casperski and not saying
that it does, the question is meant to be generic.
I've also read that ratings of virus checkers need to be considered
carefully because enough is known about testing that virus checkers can
tailor their protection to do well without it necessarily meaning much in
terms of broad protection. Again, I am not saying Casperski does this,
because I do not know that is the case. However, the whole state of viruses
and virus checkers is so variable that I am not convinced one can pick a
highly rated checker and know with any certainty that it is highly rated
today as it was when the last tests came out. I can control to some extent
whether I can pick a virus checker that I can use comfortably. Therefore, I
don't know if the choice of accessibility versus effectiveness is truly as
obvious as you describe it. Having said that, Casperski is common enough
that I am glad you are dialogging with them. It would be nice if it were
more accessible, and I, for one, would be very interested to hear what you
hear from them and which areas you find to be useable and which you do not.
Best regards,
Steve Jacobson
-----Original Message-----
From: Talk
[mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of David Goldfield via Talk
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 2:25 PM
To: Brice Mijares; Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: Re: casperski antivirus
I have never used Kaspersky with Window-Eyes. However, it may offer some
degree of accessibility and it is the antimalware program I chose to use
as of a few months ago, after Microsoft Security Essentials failed to
protect me against a rather crippling virus. I use it because it is one
of the top-rated antivirus packages on the market and I refuse to
compromise my computer's security in the name of accessibility.
I am, as some people may know, extremely passionate and a bit militant
about this issue and I apologize if I come off too strong about this.
However, blind people need to consider that we need to use the security
software which is highly-rated, rather than choosing the package that
works best with a screen reader but which may not offer an acceptable
level of protection. I am trying to dialog with Kaspersky regarding
these issues and I plan to continue to do so until accessibility is
improved. I would like to strongly urge all of you to do the same. If
one person contacts a company, they may be less inclined to act. If many
of us contact them with the same concerns, particularly if we're paying
customers, perhaps we'll get results which will be more favorable to us.
So many of us, myself included, find it easier to choose a security
program because it works best with whatever screen reader we happen to
be using. When it comes to the security of my computer, that is no
longer acceptable to me. For years, I relied upon MSE because it was
speech-friendly. I'm also an extremely cautious, responsible and
security-conscious user but these traits are no longer enough to keep
you safe. I now insist on using security software which is highly-rated,
meaning that it gets excellent scores with independent lab tests. If
it's not accessible, I am willing to engage in constructive dialog with
the company and I will go to incredible lengths to do this but, in the
end my goal is to make it accessible.
On 8/6/2015 2:45 PM, Brice Mijares via Talk wrote:
Not at all! My notebook running 8.1 came with it and after upgrading
yesterday to windows 10 I was glad to see it was gone.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Casey via Talk"
<[email protected]>
To: "Window-Eyes Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 11:33 AM
Subject: casperski antivirus
Hi just wondering is casperski antivirus useable with window-eyes?
Last I heard it wasn't but just wondering if things changed or not in
that regard.
--
Casey
_______________________________________________
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/bricemijares%4
0att.net.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
_______________________________________________
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/david.goldfiel
d%40outlook.com.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
_______________________________________________
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
