[accessibleimage] Re: An antidote to CSUN

Hi,

I think the improvements to access technology user interfaces aren't as far
off in the future as you might think.  I still talk to programmers at FS,
Dolphin and AI^2 and, recently, I've even had something of a dialogue with
Doug G.  These guys all want to make tremendous improvements to the
efficiency with which they can deliver information.  Because of the very
hard economics of accessibility under President W. there isn't much room for
doing too much experimentation.  When a few dollars free up again, I am
confident that these guys will be doing some pretty exciting shit.

Also, look at the players who we don't think of in that top tier of vision
related AT products.  John Gardner at ViewPlus has created the coolest
calculator any blink has ever heard and their other products simply kick
ass.  The guys at Serotek and Code Factory are doing some really innovative
stuff.  Others on this list are doing really interesting things with
technology as well.

Also, now that Apple has put a screen reader into their OS, Microsoft might
do a lot to improve Narrator.  When the Macintosh magnifier came out,
Madelyn, then Director of the MS ATG, said that, for Vista, MS had to
include a real magnifier as Apple had set a precedent and, therefore, MS
must include one as it is now a feature of a mainstream operating system
that people have come to expect.  VoiceOver may not be a really great screen
reader but where it does work, it works pretty well.  This opens the door
for MS to consider improvements to Narrator as a "competitive requirement"
which, in some states and 508 conscious Federal agencies, may really become
true.

Simply using Direct X, a technology MS owns, can add depth and "texture" to
the audio environment of a screen reader.  UIA, a Microsoft technology, can
add context which is often the biggest efficiency drain on a blind computer
user.  Add something tactile and we might have a whole new and exciting
world pretty soon.

I'm still rambling,
cdh


-----Original Message-----
From: accessibleimage-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:accessibleimage-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Panarese
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:39 PM
To: accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [accessibleimage] Re: An antidote to CSUN


Hi Darrell,
    I agree.  It may be gloomy or whatever kind of term some might want to
label it, but my experiences over the last dozen years cause me to concur.
How or when this will change, I simply don't know any more.

Take Care
 


John D. Panarese
Managing Director
Technologies for the Visually Impaired, Inc.
9 Nolan Court
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel/Fax, (631) 724-4479
Email, tvii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Internet, http://www.tvi-web.com

AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTORS FOR PORTSET SYSTEMS LTD, COMPSOLUTIONS VA, PREMIER
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INDEX, PAPENMEIER, REPRO-TRONICS, PULSEDATA,
DUXBURY, DANCING DOTS, ROBOTRON AND OTHER PRODUCTS FOR THE BLIND AND
VISUALLY IMPAIRED

-----Original Message-----
From: accessibleimage-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:accessibleimage-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Darrell Shandrow
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:31 PM
To: accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [accessibleimage] Re: An antidote to CSUN

Hi John and all,

I also feel that insisting on accessibility to existing assistive technology
is all we've got as blind people now and for the foreseeable future.  It is
hard enough to get mainstream industry to cooperate with us to provide
adequate accessibility as it stands, and the blind community, by and large,
lacks the willpower necessary to absolutely insist on that crucial access. 
It is thus potentially dangerous for us to go throwing the baby out with the
bathwater, so to speak.  Sorry if I seem very gloomy about all this, but I
almost lost my job a couple of months ago due to an inaccessible Siebel
implementation...





Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
A+, CSSA, Network+!
Visit http://www.petitiononline.com/captcha and sign the Google Word
Verification Accessibility Petition today!
Information should be accessible to us without need of translation by
another person.
Blind Access Journal blog and podcast: http://www.blindaccessjournal.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Panarese" <tvii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 10:03 AM
Subject: [accessibleimage] Re: An antidote to CSUN


> Hi
>      You are not the first person I've heard make this claim, and I've 
> heard sighted people  offer similar assertions.  For example as much 
> as a screen reader user may be lacking in the six factors, in general, 
> the average blind computer user tends to know far more than the 
> average sighted computer user. This is simply because one who is blind 
> and utilizes a screen reader has to become much more familiar and 
> versed in some of the intricacies the average sighted user never has 
> to deal with at all.  Thus, this same principle can be extended to 
> other work related tasks.
>
> Take Care
>
>
>
> John D. Panarese
> Managing Director
> Technologies for the Visually Impaired, Inc.
> 9 Nolan Court
> Hauppauge, NY 11788
> Tel/Fax, (631) 724-4479
> Email, tvii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Internet, http://www.tvi-web.com
>
> AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTORS FOR PORTSET SYSTEMS LTD, COMPSOLUTIONS VA, 
> PREMIER ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INDEX, PAPENMEIER, REPRO-TRONICS, 
> PULSEDATA, DUXBURY, DANCING DOTS, ROBOTRON AND OTHER PRODUCTS FOR THE 
> BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessibleimage-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:accessibleimage-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Darrell 
> Shandrow
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 12:33 PM
> To: accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [accessibleimage] Re: An antidote to CSUN
>
> Hi Lisa,
>
> Alas, I'm afraid Will's article is much gloomier than all that as both 
> full page Braille and tactile graphics are still methods of serial 
> information retrieval and processing.
>
> Now, I am about to say something that some may find offensive but I 
> just can't hold out any longer.  Despite our apparent shortcomings as 
> blind people (being unable to do parallel info retrieval without 
> sight, etc.) I'd put a competent blind worker up against a sighted one 
> anyday.  Why?  Alas, as I live my life out in the real world, I find 
> that most sighted people, for whatever reasons, choose not to use the 
> brains and other abilities given them by God.  So, in other words, 
> while most people (whom happen to be
> sighted) apparently have all these abilities I lack as a blind person, 
> I find I am often able to best them through competent performance of 
> the task at hand...
>
>
> Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
> Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
> A+, CSSA, Network+!
> Visit http://www.petitiononline.com/captcha and sign the Google Word 
> Verification Accessibility Petition today!
> Information should be accessible to us without need of translation by 
> another person.
> Blind Access Journal blog and podcast: 
> http://www.blindaccessjournal.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lisa Yayla" <fnugg@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 9:13 AM
> Subject: [accessibleimage] Re: An antidote to CSUN
>
>
>> Hi Will,
>>
>> It was very interesting to read your letter. I really enjoyed it. And 
>> if I understand correctly  it seems also to strengthen the argument 
>> that tactile graphics are important. That it  is important to have 
>> non-linear information and for the blind this is done through tactile 
>> graphics - staggered information. Or how would you call tactile graphics?
>> Non-serialized information?
>>
>> And does this also say something about the importance of reading 
>> Braille in page form?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lisa
>>
>>
>> why learning Braille is important
>>
>>
>>
>> accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>  Now that all the hype of CSUN is behind us, I thought it time to 
>>> begin to explore the more serious questions, the sort that are 
>>> rarely touched on at CSUN.  The first question I felt worthy of an 
>>> attempt at an answer is, whether using a screen reader can ever be 
>>> as efficient as using sight?
>>> There's been plenty of speculation on the topic, usually resulting 
>>> in the answer that if <insert application vendor or platform vendor> 
>>> waived their magic wand using a screen reader would be as efficient 
>>> as sight.
>>> However,
>>> after spending several years considering this, and other human 
>>> computer interaction issues related to screen reader use, I take a
> different view.
>>> My justification, whilst not exhaustive, is below.
>>>  The first area where screen readers appear to fall short is in 
>>> their ability to communicate semantics.  Communication is all about 
>>> communicating thoughts, concepts, states, etc., and communication 
>>> between an interface for a piece of software and a user is no 
>>> different in this respect.  The main problem is that screen readers, 
>>> through their use of speech and Braille, both of which are 
>>> serialised forms of communication, use less physical variables to 
>>> encode semantic
> content than sight does.
>>> There's roughly six variables that can be used to encode semantic 
>>> content, and these are:
>>> * The position of something on the X, Y and Z axes
>>> * The position of something in time
>>> * The frequency of the physical wave, represented by things like 
>>> color, pitch, etc.
>>> * The amplitude of the physical wave, or how strong it is Using a 
>>> computer with sight typically takes advantage of five of these 
>>> variables, whilst screen readers typically only use two.  So, it 
>>> will take longer to communicate the same semantic content using a 
>>> screen reader than it will sight.  To some extent this has 
>>> supporting evidence from psychological studies in which the 
>>> listening and reading speeds of the same person were compared.  
>>> These studies found that the same individual could read something 
>>> faster than they could listen to it.  There are differences between 
>>> individuals, which can account for why some screen reader users can 
>>> listen to things faster than some people can read things, but within 
>>> the same individual the evidence seems to indicate that listening to
things is slower.
>>>  This serialisation of semantic content, brought about by the 
>>> smaller capacity of speech, also has implications for memory 
>>> utilisation and cognitive workload.  Studies involving Functional 
>>> Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the cortex have shown greater activity 
>>> in the cortical regions of the brain when listening to speech than 
>>> when reading something.  Not only is there activity on the left side 
>>> of the cortex, in regions such as Brocha's Area and Wernicke's Area, 
>>> which is present for both reading and listening, but listening to 
>>> speech also produces activity in the right side of the cortex, which 
>>> is thought
> to be related to contextual priming.
>>> In addition to the extra neurological activity associated with 
>>> language processing, there is also a higher demand on short term 
>>> working
> memory.
>>> As speech is temporary, one moment it is there, the next it is not, 
>>> someone listening to speech has to remember more than someone 
>>> reading something.  It is not so easy to move back to a previously 
>>> listened to word or sentence than it is to move back to a previously 
>>> read word or sentence.  Navigating by listening often involves 
>>> listening to words, deciding whether they are the ones that are 
>>> saught after, and if not, navigating some more and repeating the
process.
>>>  Another consideration are the distinctions between programatic 
>>> focus, the mechanism used to shift attention with a screen reader, 
>>> and visual attention.  Screen readers utilise a mechanism of 
>>> programatic focus to shift the user's attention between user 
>>> interface elements.  This means that a user's attention is only 
>>> focused on a single point at once, something further compounded by a 
>>> screen reader's use of serialised output.  Whilst visual attention 
>>> is usually focused on a single object, it can shrink and grow, 
>>> similar to a zoom lens, to encompass more or less of an object.  
>>> This ability to shift attention from a word to a paragraph and then 
>>> onto the entire document provides a number of benefits for people 
>>> reading documents.  The most obvious benefit is the ability to not 
>>> only navigate by word or line, but to navigate around the document 
>>> based on more granular objects, such as paragraphs, tables, images, etc.
>>> Whilst similar functionality is available in some screen readers for 
>>> a limited set of scenarios, this functionality is not as flexible as 
>>> the visual mechanism used to shift attention.  The visual mechanism 
>>> can group granular objects together, such as a table proceeded by a 
>>> diagram, and can jump to those with very little requirement for 
>>> processing.  In addition to granular navigation, attention can also 
>>> be shifted based on physical features, such as color or location, 
>>> which requires just the elements with those physical features to be 
>>> searched, as suggested by Treisman's Feature Integration Theory.  As 
>>> far as I am aware, no equivalent functionality to this exists in a 
>>> screen reader.  One key difference between programatic and visual 
>>> attention is that programatic attention can only be moved to fixed 
>>> points, whilst visual attention can be moved to any point or object.
>>> The final difference worth mentioning is that attention is not just 
>>> limited to a single point in the visual field.  Whilst there are 
>>> overt, indogenous, mechanisms to control visual attention through 
>>> moving the point of fixation, attention can also be focused in the 
>>> periphery of the visual field, through covert, indogenous, 
>>> mechanisms.  This is a useful point, as it means that sighted people 
>>> can detect changes in the state of something that occur away from 
>>> their current point of fixation without the cognitive work involved 
>>> in moving the point of fixation  So, I, for one, am beginning to 
>>> form the opinion that screen readers are not physically capable of 
>>> delivering the same levels of efficiency as sight can.  This isn't 
>>> to say that blind people cannot gain the same level of efficiency, 
>>> just that it looks likely that they are unable to do this using a 
>>> screen reader.  What is more, is that this is not the fault of a 
>>> particular application or platform vendor, as is often claimed, but 
>>> more a problem with the core concept of a screen reader, a concept 
>>> that requires everything to be serialised.
>>>  Will
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>  Now that all the hype of CSUN is behind us, I thought it time to 
>>> begin to explore the more serious questions, the sort that are 
>>> rarely touched on at CSUN.  The first question I felt worthy of an 
>>> attempt at an answer is, whether using a screen reader can ever be 
>>> as efficient as using sight?  There's been plenty of speculation on 
>>> the topic, usually resulting in the answer that if <insert 
>>> application vendor or platform
>>> vendor> waived their magic wand using a screen reader would be as
>>> efficient as sight.  However, after spending several years 
>>> considering this, and other human computer interaction issues 
>>> related to screen reader use, I take a different view.  My 
>>> justification, whilst not exhaustive, is below.
>>>  The first area where screen readers appear to fall short is in 
>>> their ability to communicate semantics.  Communication is all about 
>>> communicating thoughts, concepts, states, etc., and communication 
>>> between an interface for a piece of software and a user is no 
>>> different in this respect.  The main problem is that screen readers, 
>>> through their use of speech and Braille, both of which are 
>>> serialised forms of communication, use less physical variables to 
>>> encode semantic
> content than sight does.
>>> There's roughly six variables that can be used to encode semantic 
>>> content, and these are:
>>> * The position of something on the X, Y and Z axes
>>> * The position of something in time
>>> * The frequency of the physical wave, represented by things like 
>>> color, pitch, etc.
>>> * The amplitude of the physical wave, or how strong it is Using a 
>>> computer with sight typically takes advantage of five of these 
>>> variables, whilst screen readers typically only use two.  So, it 
>>> will take longer to communicate the same semantic content using a 
>>> screen reader than it will sight.  To some extent this has 
>>> supporting evidence from psychological studies in which the 
>>> listening and reading speeds of the same person were compared.  
>>> These studies found that the same individual could read something 
>>> faster than they could
> listen to it.
>>> There are differences between individuals, which can account for why 
>>> some screen reader users can listen to things faster than some 
>>> people can read things, but within the same individual the evidence 
>>> seems to indicate that listening to things is slower.
>>>  This serialisation of semantic content, brought about by the 
>>> smaller capacity of speech, also has implications for memory 
>>> utilisation and cognitive workload.  Studies involving Functional 
>>> Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the cortex have shown greater activity 
>>> in the cortical regions of the brain when listening to speech than 
>>> when reading something.  Not only is there activity on the left side 
>>> of the cortex, in regions such as Brocha's Area and Wernicke's Area, 
>>> which is present for both reading and listening, but listening to 
>>> speech also produces activity in the right side of the cortex, which 
>>> is thought
> to be related to contextual priming.
>>> In addition to the extra neurological activity associated with 
>>> language processing, there is also a higher demand on short term 
>>> working
> memory.
>>> As speech is temporary, one moment it is there, the next it is not, 
>>> someone listening to speech has to remember more than someone 
>>> reading something.  It is not so easy to move back to a previously 
>>> listened to word or sentence than it is to move back to a previously 
>>> read word or sentence.  Navigating by listening often involves 
>>> listening to words, deciding whether they are the ones that are 
>>> saught after, and if not, navigating some more and repeating the
process.
>>>  Another consideration are the distinctions between programatic 
>>> focus, the mechanism used to shift attention with a screen reader, 
>>> and visual attention.  Screen readers utilise a mechanism of 
>>> programatic focus to shift the user's attention between user 
>>> interface elements.  This means that a user's attention is only 
>>> focused on a single point at once, something further compounded by a 
>>> screen reader's use of serialised output.  Whilst visual attention 
>>> is usually focused on a single object, it can shrink and grow, 
>>> similar to a zoom lens, to encompass more or less of an object.  
>>> This ability to shift attention from a word to a paragraph and then 
>>> onto the entire document provides a number of benefits for people 
>>> reading documents.  The most obvious benefit is the ability to not 
>>> only navigate by word or line, but to navigate around the document 
>>> based on
> more granular objects, such as paragraphs, tables, images, etc.
>>> Whilst similar functionality is available in some screen readers for 
>>> a limited set of scenarios, this functionality is not as flexible as 
>>> the visual mechanism used to shift attention.  The visual mechanism 
>>> can group granular objects together, such as a table proceeded by a 
>>> diagram, and can jump to those with very little requirement for 
>>> processing.  In addition to granular navigation, attention can also 
>>> be shifted based on physical features, such as color or location, 
>>> which requires just the elements with those physical features to be 
>>> searched, as suggested by Treisman's Feature Integration Theory.  As 
>>> far as I am aware, no equivalent functionality to this exists in a 
>>> screen reader.  One key difference between programatic and visual 
>>> attention is that programatic attention can only be moved to fixed 
>>> points, whilst visual attention can be moved to any point or object.
>>> The final difference worth mentioning is that attention is not just 
>>> limited to a single point in the visual field.  Whilst there are 
>>> overt, indogenous, mechanisms to control visual attention through 
>>> moving the point of fixation, attention can also be focused in the 
>>> periphery of the visual field, through covert, indogenous, 
>>> mechanisms.  This is a useful point, as it means that sighted people 
>>> can detect changes in the state of something that occur away from 
>>> their current point of fixation without the cognitive work involved 
>>> in moving the point of fixation  So, I, for one, am beginning to 
>>> form the opinion that screen readers are not physically capable of 
>>> delivering the same levels of efficiency as sight can.  This isn't 
>>> to say that blind people cannot gain the same level of efficiency, 
>>> just that it looks likely that they are unable to do this using a 
>>> screen reader.  What is more, is that this is not the fault of a 
>>> particular application or platform vendor, as is often claimed, but 
>>> more a problem with the core concept of a screen reader, a concept 
>>> that requires
> everything to be serialised.
>>>  Will
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Other related posts: