Re: disabilities
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 03:25 -0500, Kenny Hitt wrote: > Hi. > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:52:59AM +0100, Bruno Girin wrote: > > > > how well (or not) they are followed by web site designers. My experience > > in the industry is that there are very few designers who are aware of > > standards and why they should be followed. And even when they are aware > > of accessibility standards, they don't understand them well enough to > > argue the case for following them, especially when it is perceived that > > following the standards will increase the development cost. I constantly > > face this problem in my day job: every time I need to write > > specifications for a new web based system, I include accessibility > > guidelines and invariably I get answers like "that will increase the > > cost by X" or "that will delay delivery by Y" when it's not an outright > > "we can't do that". > > > > One point you might want to mention when they start talking about cost is > that if I can't use the > web site I'll ve forced to call and talk to a person to get what I want. > Which has a lower cost, making the site accessible or paying someone to > answer the phone? > I don't have any data to know the answer. Hopefully, someone has done such > studys. Yes, that point is always made. But because nobody ever has any numbers to identify how much business they would lose by not making their web site accessible, that argument generally doesn't work as well as it should. And what generally happens is that accessibility is added to the requirements as a low level priority (which usually means "we'll do it in release 2, 3 or whenever we can"). This is obviously the wrong way to do it, considering that web site accessibility is similar to multi-browser support and multi-language support in the sense that it's not rocket science and it's quite cheap to do if you include it from day 1 in your design. On the other hand, if you try to retrofit it to an existing system, it can be prohibitively expensive because it potentially requires a complete re-factoring of that system. As a result, getting accessibility accepted as an essential requirement is a lot easier on a green field project. The worst situation is when the business users have decided to buy a piece of software from a third party vendor without involving IT in the initial discussions. In the first meeting I have with the vendor I'll always ask about accessibility support. The response tends to be a blank stare, then a statement like "sorry, our product hasn't been designed for this" then some more argument and a statement like "ok, we can do this but it will cost you a lot and you will lose functionality X and Y", which are of course the functionality that sold the product to the business because they looked cool and use so much Javascript wizardry that they are completely un-accessible. That sort of response is usually a symptom of a badly designed product, which will potentially be a support nightmare once it's in production. But of course, that's of no interest to the project's stake holders as it's a potential future cost rather than an immediate one. Sorry about the rant, it's probably completely off topic by now! On the other hand, open source has an advantage here, in the sense that the money considerations that usually become barriers in the corporate world are not (or less of) an issue with open source. Instead they translate to time, effort and knowledge on the part of the application developers. The good thing is that we can all do something in terms of spreading the knowledge and some of us can help with time and effort. Bruno -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
Re: disabilities
Hi. On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:52:59AM +0100, Bruno Girin wrote: > how well (or not) they are followed by web site designers. My experience > in the industry is that there are very few designers who are aware of > standards and why they should be followed. And even when they are aware > of accessibility standards, they don't understand them well enough to > argue the case for following them, especially when it is perceived that > following the standards will increase the development cost. I constantly > face this problem in my day job: every time I need to write > specifications for a new web based system, I include accessibility > guidelines and invariably I get answers like "that will increase the > cost by X" or "that will delay delivery by Y" when it's not an outright > "we can't do that". > One point you might want to mention when they start talking about cost is that if I can't use the web site I'll ve forced to call and talk to a person to get what I want. Which has a lower cost, making the site accessible or paying someone to answer the phone? I don't have any data to know the answer. Hopefully, someone has done such studys. Kenny -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
Re: disabilities
Bruno Girin writes: > On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 02:18 -0500, Kenny Hitt wrote: > > Hi. > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 02:08:11AM +0100, Phillip Whiteside wrote: > > [snip] > > > > I asked on the forum for someone to check and see if my coding was > > > correct - > > > I had exactly zero replies back. How do you expect me to push forward > > > people to include the minor code changes as they are learning when none > > > of > > > "you" are even prepared to see if it is correct? > > > > > I don't know for sure, but there are likely very few disabled people on > > the standards committy. There > > is likely a token member, but the real power is with sighted people who > > consider this as just > > some cool project and don't really get that there delay causes real > > problems for the disabled. > > There are more than disabled people on standard committees than you > think. In practice, the problem is not with web and accessibility > standards themselves, they are with their implementation in browsers and > how well (or not) they are followed by web site designers. My experience > in the industry is that there are very few designers who are aware of > standards and why they should be followed. And even when they are aware > of accessibility standards, they don't understand them well enough to > argue the case for following them, especially when it is perceived that > following the standards will increase the development cost. I constantly > face this problem in my day job: every time I need to write > specifications for a new web based system, I include accessibility > guidelines and invariably I get answers like "that will increase the > cost by X" or "that will delay delivery by Y" when it's not an outright > "we can't do that". > > > > > > > So, I shrug my shoulders and say "well, at least I tried". > > > > > > It is not my loss that you have gotten yet another person do that, it is > > > your loss as a group. > > > > > Actually, it is my loss since I don't know anything about web design or > > standards. > > Once again, I'm not part of the "group" you are talking about. I'm just a > > user who is loosing access to more and more > > sites because some "educated" sighted people don't get it and don't listen. > > The "educated" sighted people in this case are the web standards group. > > BTW, my experiences with Firefox and Gnome are making me do the same as > > you. I am finding myself > > lumping all sighted people into the same group of fuckers who don't get it. > > This is bad for both of us. > > It's true, as a person with no disability, it took me a long time to get > it. And I don't think I completely get it yet but at least I'm now able > to make a judgement call on whether some code uses techniques that are > likely to cause accessibility issues. This is to be expected: it is > extremely difficult for someone who does not have a given disability to > understand what it is like to live with that disability. In fact, I > suspect it is difficult for a blind person to understand the challenges > faced by people with motor disabilities for instance. > > What really opened my eyes was attending a talk by Robin Christopherson > from AbilityNet [1] at the @media conference [2] a few years ago. What > made the difference was not the content of the presentation but the fact > that it was delivered by a blind user and got me to see first hand what > issues blind people face when using a computer. And that's the problem > with accessibility: even with the best will in the world, it's > impossible for non-disabled people to understand the challenges faced by > disabled people without witnessing them first hand. And very few > developers ever see first hand the software they produce used by > disabled users. > > All this to say that to solve accessibility problems, we need to talk to > each other and understand that "getting it" is very difficult for able > people. Which means that able people need to be ready to listen and see > their assumptions and "cool ideas" challenged; while disabled people > need to be patient in explaining why a particular design doesn't work > for them and suggesting constructive alternatives. > > [1] http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/webteam#robin > [2] http://atmedia.webdirections.org/ > > Bruno > Hi Bruno, I pretty much agree
Re: disabilities
On 5/24/2010 5:52 AM, Bruno Girin wrote: \> > There are more than disabled people on standard committees than you > think. In practice, the problem is not with web and accessibility > standards themselves, they are with their implementation in browsers and > how well (or not) they are followed by web site designers... this common experience is why I've come to the conclusion that are accessibility APIs and design models are fundamentally doomed to failure. Why? History. Also because anytime you expect somebody else to change something to accommodate you, they will not do it. Having been in the software biz, having run companies, I will tell you accessibility needs fall dead last both in terms of project and financial expenditures. They fall dead last because they do not add anything to the bottom-line. The number of disabled users of software is almost vanishingly small when compared to the larger market. http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/1417-Accessibility-How-Many-Disabled-Web-Users-Are-There- unfortunately, the article above doesn't deal with upper extremity disabilities like mine so one probably should assume the numbers given are the lower limit on disabled users. They estimate something like 7% of the population is disabled. That's on a par with number of Linux users and we see how well the marketplace accommodates TAB users who have disposable income in contrast to disabled users who have trouble finding jobs and have correspondingly less disposable income. I think the current models also doome because it puts the administrative load for accessibility on every system to disabled person uses. Further increasing cost for little benefit especially for employers which will probably never see a disabled person cross the threshold to apply for job let alone hold one.remember, 7% disabled in a total population approximately works out to something like one person in 20 to one person 30 in the actual working population. In my 30 year career, I'm the first, maybe second disabled person I've seen in any of the companies I worked for and these were not small companies. So, how do we change this? We changes by minimizing the changes necessary to applications and hopefully, embed them in libraries so they are used automatically without any work on the part of the developer. We built clients to handle the disability user interface and talk to the back doors in those libraries to do the disability work. We lower the costs/barrier to entry for employers and application developers alike and we end up with a greater range of applications that can be used. cultural and technical challenges discussed later if you care. > It's true, as a person with no disability, it took me a long time to get > it. And I don't think I completely get it yet but at least I'm now able > to make a judgement call on whether some code uses techniques that are > likely to cause accessibility issues. This is to be expected: it is > extremely difficult for someone who does not have a given disability to > understand what it is like to live with that disability. In fact, I > suspect it is difficult for a blind person to understand the challenges > faced by people with motor disabilities for instance. I'm puzzled by this. If you going to work with disability issues, one on handicap yourself in the same way. For example, gloves that restrict finger movement or induced pain when you touch something. Blind folds or having someone remove your keyboard, or worse, generate random keystrokes when you touch a key? I would think that a couple of days with nothing but speech recognition and the mouse would give you a feel for the panic the disabled user feels and a week might give you the first glimmers of understanding to how the solver is problems. A month, and you'll be one of us. :-) > All this to say that to solve accessibility problems, we need to talk to > each other and understand that "getting it" is very difficult for able > people. Which means that able people need to be ready to listen and see > their assumptions and "cool ideas" challenged; while disabled people > need to be patient in explaining why a particular design doesn't work > for them and suggesting constructive alternatives. good point. I will also add that patience runs out somewhere around 10 to 12 years of explaining to yet another generation of clueless programmers what's wrong with their approach and being told "get off of your own fucking lawn grandpa, we know what we are doing" only to see them crash, burn, and walk away saying "that wasn't really an interesting problem after all". -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
Re: disabilities
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 02:18 -0500, Kenny Hitt wrote: > Hi. > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 02:08:11AM +0100, Phillip Whiteside wrote: [snip] > > I asked on the forum for someone to check and see if my coding was correct - > > I had exactly zero replies back. How do you expect me to push forward > > people to include the minor code changes as they are learning when none of > > "you" are even prepared to see if it is correct? > > > I don't know for sure, but there are likely very few disabled people on the > standards committy. There > is likely a token member, but the real power is with sighted people who > consider this as just > some cool project and don't really get that there delay causes real problems > for the disabled. There are more than disabled people on standard committees than you think. In practice, the problem is not with web and accessibility standards themselves, they are with their implementation in browsers and how well (or not) they are followed by web site designers. My experience in the industry is that there are very few designers who are aware of standards and why they should be followed. And even when they are aware of accessibility standards, they don't understand them well enough to argue the case for following them, especially when it is perceived that following the standards will increase the development cost. I constantly face this problem in my day job: every time I need to write specifications for a new web based system, I include accessibility guidelines and invariably I get answers like "that will increase the cost by X" or "that will delay delivery by Y" when it's not an outright "we can't do that". > > > So, I shrug my shoulders and say "well, at least I tried". > > > > It is not my loss that you have gotten yet another person do that, it is > > your loss as a group. > > > Actually, it is my loss since I don't know anything about web design or > standards. > Once again, I'm not part of the "group" you are talking about. I'm just a > user who is loosing access to more and more > sites because some "educated" sighted people don't get it and don't listen. > The "educated" sighted people in this case are the web standards group. > BTW, my experiences with Firefox and Gnome are making me do the same as you. > I am finding myself > lumping all sighted people into the same group of fuckers who don't get it. > This is bad for both of us. It's true, as a person with no disability, it took me a long time to get it. And I don't think I completely get it yet but at least I'm now able to make a judgement call on whether some code uses techniques that are likely to cause accessibility issues. This is to be expected: it is extremely difficult for someone who does not have a given disability to understand what it is like to live with that disability. In fact, I suspect it is difficult for a blind person to understand the challenges faced by people with motor disabilities for instance. What really opened my eyes was attending a talk by Robin Christopherson from AbilityNet [1] at the @media conference [2] a few years ago. What made the difference was not the content of the presentation but the fact that it was delivered by a blind user and got me to see first hand what issues blind people face when using a computer. And that's the problem with accessibility: even with the best will in the world, it's impossible for non-disabled people to understand the challenges faced by disabled people without witnessing them first hand. And very few developers ever see first hand the software they produce used by disabled users. All this to say that to solve accessibility problems, we need to talk to each other and understand that "getting it" is very difficult for able people. Which means that able people need to be ready to listen and see their assumptions and "cool ideas" challenged; while disabled people need to be patient in explaining why a particular design doesn't work for them and suggesting constructive alternatives. [1] http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/webteam#robin [2] http://atmedia.webdirections.org/ Bruno -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
disabilities
Hi. On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 02:08:11AM +0100, Phillip Whiteside wrote: > don't complain to me that I only spend so much time on the matter - get onto > the likes of http://www.w3.org/WAI/ it IS about time those with disablilties > TOLD these people to stop bickering .. except that you are all still, > erm . bickering. > I can't speak for others, but I have complained with the same result as you. Please don't make the mistake of deciding all disabled people are part of some big group. Even blind Linux users aren't part of the same group. I see at least 2 different groups. People who run Windows and play around with Linux and people like me who run Linux full time. Our priorities are different. I want access to the web, while the users who just play in Linux want it to behave like Windows. In my case I can't afford Windows, so I do my best to get by with Linux. I do believe open source is better, so won't switch back to a model that forces me to constantly pay money I don't have to companies who only want to make as much money as possible just to keep access to the computer. I'm not against commercial programs or companies making money. I own several Cepstral voices, but I'm against the price gouging you have in Windows access. > Let me repeat what I intimated in my posts on that link, until standards are > decided upon, people will not put in the effort to comply with them. > I agree. While these people are sitting on there ass, I loose access to more and more web sites each day. I had to switch from elinks to Firefox last week because kgoradio changed there site. All I wanted to do was download a mp3 file. Aparently, the download area didn't look good enough with the old page, so they updated it to something that won't work with elinks. I'm not suggesting all sites consider elinks as a standard, but for simple things like downloading a file or filling out a simple form, the browser shouldn't make any difference. What makes this worse is the Mozilla project puts there resources in Windows while I run Linux. They made a change to Firefox a few years ago that really made sites less usable. Dialogs no longer get focus in Firefox. This forces you to tab around until you find them. Since the existance of a dialog isn't always obvious, you can visit sites and not be able to use them because you don't know what's actually happening. This problem was brought up with the Mozilla developers with no solution. They just ignored the problem and left it to the Orca developers to try to figure out a solution. So far, no success. > I asked on the forum for someone to check and see if my coding was correct - > I had exactly zero replies back. How do you expect me to push forward > people to include the minor code changes as they are learning when none of > "you" are even prepared to see if it is correct? > I don't know for sure, but there are likely very few disabled people on the standards committy. There is likely a token member, but the real power is with sighted people who consider this as just some cool project and don't really get that there delay causes real problems for the disabled. > So, I shrug my shoulders and say "well, at least I tried". > > It is not my loss that you have gotten yet another person do that, it is > your loss as a group. > Actually, it is my loss since I don't know anything about web design or standards. Once again, I'm not part of the "group" you are talking about. I'm just a user who is loosing access to more and more sites because some "educated" sighted people don't get it and don't listen. The "educated" sighted people in this case are the web standards group. BTW, my experiences with Firefox and Gnome are making me do the same as you. I am finding myself lumping all sighted people into the same group of fuckers who don't get it. This is bad for both of us. Kenny -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
[Bug 13457] Re: Keyboard rate is not long enough for users with disabilities
OK, Improving the accessibility of the d-i version is a good aim in itself. We should look at that more generally for Edgy. We might be able to use the Speakup kernel module for example. My point was just that the reason this issue was a major accessibility problem has largely gone away. When the install CD was the only way for someone to install to the HD then this was a complete show-stopper for some user groups. Now there is an alternative path so I think the problem has been removed from the user's POV. Of course there may be some corner cases where the Live CD is not suitable. Anyway, I like this wind of accessibility awarenes blowing through ubuntu ATM :) -- Keyboard rate is not long enough for users with disabilities https://launchpad.net/bugs/13457 -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
[Bug 13457] Re: Keyboard rate is not long enough for users with disabilities
We aren't dropping support for the alternate install CD, so if it's still a problem there, the bug should stay open. ** Changed in: kbd-chooser (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Released => Confirmed -- Keyboard rate is not long enough for users with disabilities https://launchpad.net/bugs/13457 -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
[Bug 13457] Re: Keyboard rate is not long enough for users with disabilities
The Live CD install path now works well and using that it is possible to set the delay before ever typing anything. It also shows you * markers as you type the password. Setting status as Fixed. ** Changed in: kbd-chooser (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => Fix Released -- Keyboard rate is not long enough for users with disabilities https://launchpad.net/bugs/13457 -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
[Bug 13457] Re: Keyboard rate is not long enough for users with disabilities
Setting it as confirmed as well, since there looks like it's agreed on that it was/is a problem, even if it is monoir or maby closed/fixed ** Changed in: kbd-chooser (Ubuntu) Status: Unconfirmed => Confirmed -- Keyboard rate is not long enough for users with disabilities https://launchpad.net/bugs/13457 -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
[Bug 13457] Re: Keyboard rate is not long enough for users with disabilities
I would say this issue is now largelly solved with espresso because in gnome you can set the delay or even enable the bounce keys feature. Someone who has this problem can install via the Live CD (which will be the most common install path anyway). I'm setting the severity to Minor, but IMO we could mark it as fixed. Colin? ** Changed in: kbd-chooser (Ubuntu) Severity: Major => Minor -- Keyboard rate is not long enough for users with disabilities https://launchpad.net/malone/bugs/13457 -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
[Bug 7108] Keyboard rate is not long enough for users with disabilities
Please do not reply to this email. You can add comments at http://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/show_bug.cgi?id=7108 Ubuntu (installer) | kbd-chooser [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ubuntu- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] ||om -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
