[accessibleimage] Re: Please support web access to visual verification systems

Then, there's low bandwidth and for one reason or another, not loading images. Access for all includes all! People with "disabilities" are only a small part of the problem.

--
Jonnie Apple Seed
With his:
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s


On Jan 17, 2006, at 11:09 PM, Kaizen Program wrote:

Being willing to settle for audio recordings as the only alternative to web
access to visual verification systems is completely inadequate for me and
other people who are blind or have low vision and also have hearing
impairments. I think it is vital that all demands and requests for
accessibility include accessibility for all people who are blind or have low
vision, including those who are also deaf or hard of hearing. If some people
who are blind or have low vision but can hear quite well gain greater access
while other people who are blind or have low vision and also have hearing
challenges do not, a bad precedent is set for leaving some out. The
rationale of impracticality or inconvenience, etc. that justifies
compromising on only limited access, and thereby leaves people who are blind
or have low vision plus hearing difficulties out, also justifies leaving
people who are blind or have low vision out even when they have good
hearing, when it is judged to be too impractical or inconvenient to figure
out how to provide access.

My time and energy are limited, so I have to think carefully about what I
work for. If we are going to spend our time and energy on petitions and
demands, we need to demand that all of the technical experts involved in the
mainstream and access technology companies get together and develop some
combination of solutions, tactile or otherwise, that will provide access for
all.

Sylvie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Shandrow" <nu7i@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:43 PM
Subject: [accessibleimage] Re: Please support web access to visual
verification systems


Hi Will,

While I agree with you wholeheartedly concerning the current state of
affairs with screen reader innovation, I must, sadly, disagree in this one
case of visual verification. As soon as assistive technology companies
figure out how to use OCR to render these images in text form, the visual
CAPTCHAs will be changed to retain their security value. Keep in mind
there's absolutely nothing preventing spammers and others who aren't blind
from purchasing and using assistive technologies to abuse web site
resources. I'm afraid I am still not convinced that, at least in this one
type of situation, mainstream companies don't have to make their CAPTCHAs
accessible.

Again, please, everyone, do sign the petition at
http://www.petitiononline.com/captcha and spread the word to the world.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Will Pearson" <will-pearson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: [accessibleimage] Re: Please support web access to visual
verification systems


Hi Chris et al,

Reply inline...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Hofstader" <chris.hofstader@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: [accessibleimage] Please support web access to visual
verification systems


I will happily sign this but I will also send this along to a friend of
mine who is working on image analysis software > to solve this specific
problem. His thesis is that the
problem is less the Turing tests themselves but, rather,
the lack of innovation or will by the screen reader
manufacturers to
even try to create an intelligent agent that can figure out > the text in
these somewhat obfuscated graphics. His
work has shown a 95-97% level of accuracy with these > bitmaps and, once
they have it converted to a to a plug > in for IE, they'll announce and
make it available to
people who want it.

I think the problem really lies with the screen reader vendors, but it
also has other aspects to it that compound the screen reader vendors
position. The screen reader vendors are really now starting to fail their
users. Screen scraping has reached it's limits, and to gain access to more
content alternative techniques will have to be developed that superceed
screen scraping. However, the screen reader vendors still continue to
push screen scraping with no visible signs that they are even considering
an alternative, let alone working on one. This problem is somewhat
compounded by socio-cultural and political aspects. Over the past few
years, at least in terms of computing accessibility, accessibility has
really become synonomous with making things work with a screen reader. I
get the impression that people have lost sight of what accessibility is
really all about, and that is enabling people to do things, not making
sure something works with a particular technology. This false association
between making things accessible and making them work with a screen reader
has meant that the spin doctors at the screen reader vendors can usually
make the claim that it's not their fault that product x is inaccessible,
it is the fault of vendor y for not making product x work with a screen
reader. A cottage industry has sprung up around making things work with a
screen reader, who have a vested interest in maintaining this false
relationship, and legislation, in the form of Section 508, demands that
some software work with a screen reader.

All this has led to the focus being switched from the screen readers
failiure to innovate to the software vendors failiure to make something
work with a screen reader. Therefore, if the screen reader vendors are
going to be made to innovate the focus will have to be switched back to
their failings. Personally, I feel that the focus should be on the screen
reader vendors, as they hold the power to make almost everything
accessible and in an efficient manner.

If the screen reader vendors continue to believe that it is not possible
to innovate beyond screen scraping and accessing a DOM, then I'm quite
happy to show them my latest creation, a system to render automatic audio
descriptions for videos on the fly. It's not a system I expect the
average user to use, at least not yet any way, due to the system
requirements, but a lot of the techniques I used to do this can be applied
to shape identification for static images, such as those found on most
software user interfaces, and should be able to be run on an uniprocessor
system for static images, due to lesser requirements for concurrency. I'd
be quite happy to show this to the screen reader vendors providing they
didn't charge the end user for using any of my work.

After fighting the document accessibility and screen reader innovation
wars for six years, I left FS to work on > more future oriented projects.
I truly believe that the
major screen reader companies have given up trying to > do any real
innovation and are ignoring problems like
these graphics and complaining that they present
problems that cannot be solved.

As a researcher I'm a professional sceptic. I haven't yet seen an
overwhelming body of proven evidence that convinces me that this sort of
thing is impossible to solve. However, I've seen some evidence that has
started to convince me that it is possible to solve these problems.
Therefore, I think the screen reader vendors are trying to get out of
doing some work, which wouldn't surprise me, it's something they're rather
good at.

I think that the "impossible" excuse has been worn out > so badly that
its use is nearly laughable. One screen
reader company has an overwhelming dominant
position so doesn't need to innovate to make money
and the others are too small to have the dollars or the
ability to take risks on moving the art forward.
The result is that we blinks are screwed until something changes in the
approach by the established companies or > a new player comes along and,
to break into the
market, must do something radically new and exciting
to distinguish themselves and offer a reason for users,
agencies, governments
etc. to switch.

With the current state of screen readers, it's not terribly hard to set a
value proposition that exceeds that offered by, say JAWS, especially if
you're a researcher *g*.

I think we're seeing the start of the trend to the new companies pushing
the innovation bar up. Serotek with
Freedom Box System Access and Code Factory
with Mobile Speak Pocket are doing some extremely interesting things and
taking a lot of risks by playing
against the establishment players. It's
yet to be seen if they can cause a tectonic shift in the
AT landscape though.

I'm just waiting until I can pick up 11800 31st Court North for a few
dollars in the bargain basement sale of Freedom Scientific's assets. I
truely believe, that unless the screen reader vendors start to innovate,
it will not be long before a new entrant comes to market with an offering
who's value proposition dwarves that of existing screen readers. When
that happens, it will likely not bring good news for Dick C's bank
balance.

To fit this message in with the topic of this forum, one of the things I
believe it technologically possible fore screen readers to do, is to make
images accessible. I've already done it, if only on the scale of a
research prototype, for the W3C's Scaleable Vector Graphics format.

Will









Other related posts: