David, I, for one, will be interested to hear more what your experiences are with Casperski. I know that there has been work with specific virus software by GW Micro to make them more accessible over the years. There have been a number of times when a specific antivirus software was recommended only to have the next version suddenly not be accessible. My employer used to use something called Norton Corporate Edition and I was able to use it as an employee on my home computer. At the time, Norton's consumer offerings were just awful for accessibility, but the corporate edition worked very nicely. My employer now uses a corporate version of McAfee, and it appears to me to be pretty accessible while people struggle with the home versions. Still, it doesn't appear we can just buy the corporate versions. It has been a rough road regarding accessibility and antivirus software over time. Of course, one of the problems is that screen readers cannot work with antivirus developers unless the antivirus developers are willing to work with them as well.
Again, I hope you share your experiences with us. I don't mind using the mouse keys some to get the job done if it is reliable.. Best regards, Steve -----Original Message----- From: David Goldfield [mailto:david.goldfi...@outlook.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 7:21 PM To: Steve Jacobson <steve.jacob...@visi.com>; Window-Eyes Discussion List <talk@lists.window-eyes.com> Subject: Re: casperski antivirus 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:talk-bounces+steve.jacobson=visi....@lists.window-eyes.com] 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" >> <talk@lists.window-eyes.com> >> To: "Window-Eyes Discussion List" <talk@lists.window-eyes.com> >> 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
