Hi,
I’m glad you weren’t unhappy. It just jumped out to my detail chasing nature
and I figured after a long week it probably slipped right on by ya (smile). If
you tweet a link to it I’ll retweet it with great joy (smile).
Get some rest you (smiles).
Robin
From: David Goldfield
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2016 12:59 AM
To: blind-philly-comp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-philly-comp] Re: Question: Which Antivirus Program Works With
My Screen Reader? Answer: You Might Be Asking the Wrong Question
Thanks again, Robin. It's nice to have a spell checker but Word doesn't come
with a common sense checker. That's what I get for working on this stuff after
11 PM.
On 11/5/2016 12:51 AM, Robin Frost wrote:
Hi,
I enjoyed this piece very much. Umm, but could I maybe like umm gingerly
request one wee edit (smile)?
You say;
“While the program’s accessibility isn’t perfect, it is quite usable and I am
able to adjust most of the program’s settings. Unfortunately, the installer for
the newer versions is completely accessible, something which I hope Kaspersky
will soon remedy.”
I think you really meant inaccessible at least I hope you did other wise it
doesn’t make sense (smile).
And I really, really hope Kaspersky’s installer becomes more accessible.
Take good care.
Robin
From: David Goldfield
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2016 12:06 AM
To: Philadelphia Computer Users Group for the Blind and Visually Impaired
Subject: [blind-philly-comp] Question: Which Antivirus Program Works With My
Screen Reader? Answer: You Might Be Asking the Wrong Question
The following post was originally a reply which I composed to a thread of
messages on the Window-eyes discussion list. I decided to add some material to
it, removed exclusive references to Window-Eyes and published it to my blog.
I'm reposting it below, for those who are interested in this topic.
During my time working with and using assistive technology, I have
participated in many discussion forums dealing with various pieces of adaptive
hardware and software products for the visually impaired. One topic which often
comes up has to do with the accessibility of antivirus programs with screen
readers. Usually, someone will pose a question such as “I’m trying to find out
what’s the most accessible antivirus program which I can use with my screen
reader?” There will be many opinions, of course, with people commenting on this
or that antivirus package which works well with a particular screen reader.
This is certainly an important topic and one which definitely needs to be
addressed. I would like to weigh in on this issue and begin the answer to that
question by saying that we might not be starting out with the right question.
Some of the things I'm about to write regarding the subject of antivirus
accessibility may be controversial to some and may possibly ruffle some
feathers. This is not my intent. I'd just like to offer a slightly different
perspective on this topic.
The question we should all be asking, whether we're blind or sighted, is what
antivirus or security solution is highly rated, according to independent lab
tests. I realize the problem with this question is that, sometimes, what some
may consider to be a good antivirus solution might not be compatible with our
screen reader of choice. When we find out that specific solutions we might
otherwise have considered don't work well with our screen reader, we choose one
which is more accessible. Lest you think I'm looking down on other screen
reader users, please know that I did the exact same thing for years.
In 1999, I began using what was, at that time, a current version of Norton
Antivirus on my Windows 98 machine. The program was well-known, was shipped
with my computer with a free, one year subscription and was, from what I
remember, 100% accessible.
Eventually, the program's level of accessibility began to change and I
discovered AVG 7.5. It, too, was 100% accessible and was probably the only
antivirus program which allowed the user to change and redefine shortcut keys
for its various functions, just as today’s screen readers allow you to change
the shortcut keys for their commands. It was amazing and it seemed like it was
almost made for visually impaired screen reader users. I should note that I
never once considered whether the program was actually effective in keeping my
computer secure. As naive as this may sound, I'll admit that it never occurred
to me to actually read objective reviews to see if AVG could do an even
half-decent job in protecting my system. It was free, super accessible and had
the word antivirus in its name. What more could I possibly want?
As I'm sure many of you will remember, version 8 of AVG came along and, while
the program was still mostly accessible, the interface changed, keyboard
shortcut reassignment was gone and, over time, accessibility became a bit more
problematic, although the program was certainly usable enough. Bear in mind
that I haven't used it in several years and, if accessibility has improved,
I'll be the first to celebrate that fact.
So, like so many of us, I decided to find another program with the word
antivirus in its title with at least reasonable screen reader accessibility. I
found Avast 4.x and it wasn't bad. Like many blind people, I happily used it.
Until 5.0 came around and the program was not accessible, though I know they've
since been working on this and things have likely changed.
So, I uninstalled Avast and found what I believed was the ideal solution with
Microsoft Security Essentials. It was free, seemed light on resources and was
100% accessible. My problem, so I thought, was solved. Over time, I began to
read that MSE wasn't doing as well in dealing with viruses but I figured, hey,
I'm a cautious user. I take a lot of precautions: I update software regularly,
adjusted security settings on my router, am careful about opening attachments
to the point of paranoia, use a script blocker on most pages ... in other
words, I was hardly what you would call reckless and used my computer as
responsibly as I knew how. Of course, I knew even then that there was always a
chance my PC could get hit by malware, no matter how careful I was, but I
believed I was reasonably safe. Until I was hit by crippling malware which
forced me to reformat my hard drive and reinstall everything, rebuilding
everything from the ground up.
I realize that there are many people who have found an accessible or at least
usable antivirus solution who have never been hit by malware. I'm sure there
are many happy users of MSE or Windows Defender who happily use their computer
who may never be crippled by a virus. I also realize that corporations who
deploy many different security solutions, who employ security experts who know
a hundred times more than I'll ever hope to know, still get hit by malware.
When it comes to computer security, there are no guarantees, no matter how much
you know or what you do to protect yourself. My point is that, for years, I was
content to place accessibility as a higher priority over safety and security
and that simply isn't a mistake I'm willing to make again. For word processing,
I use Microsoft Word, not only because it's quite accessible, but because it
simply is one of the best word processors out there for what I need.
I would encourage anyone considering their security needs to read reviews of
which programs performed well with independent tests and then download a demo
version of the program they choose; I believe most security programs offer a 30
or 60 day trial. If it doesn't perform well with your preferred screen reader,
I would do a few things.
First, write to the developer of the program with a clear description of the
accessibility issues you're experiencing, with as much detail as you can
provide. Let them know that you're considering purchasing the software but that
you're unwilling to do so until the issues you're describing are addressed. If
they don't respond, contact them publicly on Twitter. In addition, contact your
screen reader developer to see if they can construct scripts, apps or
configuration files to try and work around what you're experiencing. Computer
security is too serious of an issue to make decisions based on how well the
program works with a screen reader, rather than making the decision based on
how well the software actually secures the precious data on your computer. I
love good conversation as much as the next person but, if I'm trying to find a
good physician, I'll choose one based on how skilled he is as a doctor, rather
than on how articulate or eloquent he may be. If he's highly skilled and a good
conversationalist, that's fabulous but I prize skill and knowledge over how
much we might have in common to chat about.
I would also respectfully ask the staff at NV Access and VFO Group to
consider working with the developers of security software to see if alliances
can be formed, with the goal of making these important software packages more
accessible with NVDA, JAWS and Window-Eyes. Screen reader manufacturers forge
similar alliances with companies like Microsoft for the same reasons. These
alliances are what allows programs like Window-eyes to maintain compatibility
and fabulous accessibility with programs such as Word, Excel and the operating
system itself. When screen reader manufacturers say that they're ready to work
with Windows 10 or Word 2016 out of the gate, it's partly due to these
necessary relationships they form with companies like Microsoft. I'm not
criticizing such partnerships. Nobody denies that screen readers are useless if
they don't offer great support for products like Outlook, Word and even Windows
10 itself. I'm asking that screen reader developers take this concept further
and reach out to developers of security programs, to form similar partnerships.
Having access to Microsoft Word is great. However, that accessibility means
nothing if the security solutions designed to protect my Word documents isn't
accessible.
At this point, some of you may be wondering which program I decided to use. I
chose Kaspersky Antivirus. When I had my computer in a local shop after it was
hit by the virus I wrote about earlier, the proprietor said that he used this
program and recommended it. I read a review of it in PC Magazine and was
convinced that it would be a good choice, considering how well it performed in
independent lab tests. I didn’t know what level of accessibility it offered but
I was determined to make it work, even if I had to engage in a lot of advocacy
to achieve that goal.
While the program’s accessibility isn’t perfect, it is quite usable and I am
able to adjust most of the program’s settings. Unfortunately, the installer for
the newer versions is completely accessible, something which I hope Kaspersky
will soon remedy.
Finally, if you’d like to talk with me and other users about what we can do
to change the accessibility landscape of security software, I have set up a
mailing list for that purpose. Please consider joining it and, together,
perhaps we can assist in improving screen reader accessibility of these
critical pieces of software.
--
David Goldfield,
Assistive Technology Specialist
Feel free to visit my Web site
WWW.DavidGoldfield.Info
