[bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- From: "Tristram Llewellyn" <tris-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bcab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:11:01 -0000
"if people have got even a little bit of sight, why don't they make the most of
what they've got instead of giving the impression that they've got no sight at
all?"
I don't know if this is quite accurate. Most if not all visually impaired
however much vision they have use it as much as they can. However, the world,
general public etc. do not often have time for an accurate perception of visual
impairement unless they experience it for themselves. It is both simpler and
more comfortable for most general public to assume if you have a cane or a dog
you have no useful vision. Consenquently if you have neither you are not
visually impaired. If, as I have, narrowly avoiding fast moving pavement
cyclists, they think you are thick or swear at you because you haven't spotted
them thirty yards off, I suspect if there was a cane or a dog this would not
occur. Therefore I suspect for most visually impaired people it is simpler to
accept offered help or explain they have no sight than go into chapter and
verse about their eye condition. As for partial sight I think neither sighted
or totally blind understand where you are coming from.
As for developers of software or technical aids I would also dissagree, Jaws is
not aimed at those who are sighted, you are not expected to have any vision for
Jaws. Indeed Jaws far too much info for anyone with any useful vision.
Packages like Zoomtext and Magic with speech are targeted specifically at those
groups and Dolphin Supernova is practically a one stop shop for everything if
you want it, Dolphin make a very good living doing that. Historically
magnification packages always went ahead of speech applications, there was a
Lunar for Windows even before any speech acess to Windows. Those with some
useful vision are even catered for in a basic way in Windows with enlarged
schemes that for some may even preclude use of access technology.
Where there is a difficult crossover is where people want screen reader speech
and are hanging onto very little vision via magnification. I have come accross
people using screens with much less than a full word visibile on the screen
struggling even for some minutes to read that one word, this is just not
efficient even if their sight holds up for the duration. There is also a
difficulty in negotiating two different worlds of speech and magnification.
They are very different and I think in some extreme cases cause confusion
rather than being a compliment.
Because of the very real emotional, practical and cultural significance of
sight loss in particular, and sight impairement in general, it is difficult to
educate those who do not experience this as much as those who are visually
impaired people would like. In the end you can only provide an incomplete or
at best generalised picture. Western culture from what I can percieve is
actually moving into ever more complex and nuanced visual modes of
communication rather than meeting with an experience that visually impaired
people would understand probably because it affords faster communication. The
apparant popularity of the Microsoft Office 2007 ribbon technology may be seen
as an example of that
Regards.
Tristram Llewellyn
Sight and Sound Technology
Technical Support
www.sightandsound.co.uk
- Follow-Ups:
- [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- From: Dorothy Ingram-Gorban
- References:
- [bcab] Re: Accessibility considerations
- From: Charles Crisp
- [bcab] Re: Accessibility considerations
- From: Dorothy Ingram-Gorban
- [bcab] Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- From: Karl Proud
- [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- From: Karina Gregory
- [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- From: Karl Proud
Other related posts:
- » [bcab] Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- » [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- » [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- » [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- » [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- » [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- » [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- » [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- » [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- » [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- From: Dorothy Ingram-Gorban
- [bcab] Re: Accessibility considerations
- From: Charles Crisp
- [bcab] Re: Accessibility considerations
- From: Dorothy Ingram-Gorban
- [bcab] Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- From: Karl Proud
- [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- From: Karina Gregory
- [bcab] Re: Residual vision was Accessibility considerations
- From: Karl Proud