[talks-uk] Where Adaptation meets Accessibility
- From: Neil Barnfather - TalkNav <forums@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: viphone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, macvisionaries@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mobileaccess@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, The Accessible Phones Discussion List <blindphones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Talks Mailing List <talks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, talks-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 11:32:57 +0100
Dear All,
About a year or so ago now, I wrote the below short paper covering the topic of
Accessibility verse Adaptation.
Given the discussion recently on a few mailing lists I'm subscribed to about
making various Apps accessible, I thought this might provoke a few individuals
into considering this topic a little more. Quite often I hear blind and low
vision users stating that something should be easily made to work for us as
blind users... Sure, in many instances this is true, but, in some instances,
what we need or require goes beyond simple accessibility feature sets, and in
fact becomes an adaptation.
I very much welcome any feed back on the below, I hope it may help all of us to
have a moment of reflection over our needs, requirements and expectations.
When is adaptation more than simple accessibility?
Up until recently adaptive technology was seen solely as a method of altering
an item, or thing, to make it usable by a blind or low vision user; be it a
device created from the ground up to meet the specific needs of this user group
(e.g. Braille Note) or a multipurpose software package such as JAWS.
At present a handful of global developers produce the majority of the
technology used by the blind; this primarily encompasses adaptive technologies
as apposed to simply accessible technology. The equipment is often simply
replicating the function or feature of a mainstream device, but with
specifically targeted functionality for the blind user base (defined controls,
tactilely strong, speech output, braille interface).
It’s all a number game
Economically speaking this macro-market has kept the cost of adaptive
technology at a premium; owing to the large overheads and often minuscule
consumer base for these goods. In addition the cost of these goods is often
hyper-inflated due to the additional support and after-sales contacts
associated with the market (rightly or wrongly). This is in addition to highly
expensive pre-sales visits to customers—many of whom often have neither the
monetary means to purchase, or even a genuine requirement for said item. The
costs of bring a product to market increase the overall cost, and can in part
explain the often notable price discrepancy between adaptive and non-adaptive
technology on sale. To put this into perspective, it has been estimated that
pre and after sales support can add in excess of 50% to the total cost of any
product purchased.
One obvious solution to this situation might be to reduce the pre-sales visits
to those who—after vetting—display a legitimate desire for the product; simply
limiting home demonstrations and maximising the number of trade shows exhibited
at can contribute significantly to reducing overall expenditure. In addition,
support services could be offered in a more limited manner; with additional
support being a premium service for either new users or those with more complex
requirements.
Focusing specifically on numbers; the market for much adaptive technology is
less than 0.0001% of the sighted equivalent and in many cases less than this.
This means that—usually owing to the failure of the original supplier to
provision for this group—a small and highly specialised elite have assumed the
role of catering for the blind community through adaptation.
Behind the times and a brighter future
When you consider screen reading software packages such as JAWS or Zoom Text,
one can easily follow the process the developers have followed; a steady and
methodical game of catch-up, in which they clamber to make mainstream software
usable for this user group. All this means is that blind users have always been
a few steps—if not more—behind technological developments in most fields. This
has obviously led to a time delay being common place when blind users attempt
to use the latest technology and can often cause difficulties in the employment
sector. In large owing to blind users often not being able to utilise either
the latest software versions—or worse, access bespoke packages. These include,
but are not limited to, new and innovative technologies utilised in content
dispersal such as Ajax, HTML5 and Java—which can hinder access not only to
detailed and comprehensive data but also fundamental information contained in
newspapers or travel applications.
The recent steps of technology companies (such as Apple) providing access
technology as part of their core functionality has seen the start of a new—and
much anticipated—dawn for this user group. These past few years have seen Apple
include screen reader and magnification tools directly in their product range
(including personal computers, portable media devices). This technology
redefines the market due to it being access technology but not in itself
adaptive; it simply allows access to the product without any additional
software being necessary. Of note is the notion of cost (or value); many claim
this technology is free of charge, but should more appropriately be seen as
inclusive in the cost of the product. With the cost of many Apple products
being in excess of other alternative off-the-shelf options, it can often be
ignored that their offerings—once adaptive elements are factored in—can be
significantly cheaper.
The major significance of this change is that the technological advancements
are now being made progressively in tandem with the sighted mainstream, or at
least more in-step than previously. This is reflected in the proposed release
of Apple’s new operating system (Lion); upon its release it will be accessible
for all sighted and non-sighted users inclusively. Finally—it would seem—blind
users are at the cutting edge of technological developments and the
enhancements that come with this, and no longer playing catch up with their
sighted peers.
Core principles
Whilst these improvements go a long way to address the discrepancy between the
two markets, this is limited to core components (OS, core applications) and can
give a false impression which is responsible for causing the widening gap
between a users expectation and reality. Whilst blind users are aquatinted with
being considered last with regards to developing technology, having spent
decades inline waiting for their adaptations to be made, the door to equality
has now been partially opened. With this comes a higher level of expectation
and in some ways this has now superseded the reality of the current state of
affairs; leaving to increased frustration with many technologies remaining
inaccessible or completely unusable.
The opinion of many has been obscured by the notion that when a particular
application is partially accessible it should be relatively easy to make it
completely accessible. An example of this would be the slew of GPS/navigation
tools available on the iOS platform; all of which offer access to their apps
with varying levels of success. The issue is one of accessibility in terms of
gaining access to the on-screen content through technologies such as Apple’s
VoiceOver.
Where the discontinuity occurs is when accessibility blends with adaptation.
The latest enhancements to devices such as the iPhone have to some degree or
another masked the distinction between accessibility and adaptation. A prime
example is Google Maps; a popular and free-of-charge navigation aid for iOs
devices. A blind user might rightly, or wrongly, believe that their inability
to use this app is purely based on accessibility issues—they would for the main
part be wrong in this assessment. This is the core problem presented where
accessibility meets adaptation; making a produce accessible can be relatively
simply (labelling buttons, graphics and the like), but in many cases it is far
more complicated.
A sighted user of Google Maps visually interprets the map with their eyes,
extrapolating the relevant and discarding the excess—what’s ahead of me, what’s
behind me, there’s the petrol station—whereas a blind user has no ability to do
so, and thus requires the app to carry out this interpretation for them. It
should also then present the resulting output in an accessible, understandable
and comprehensible manner. To focus on a key feature of a GPS app, many blind
users would want the system to only report objects of note ahead of the
direction of travel; this is not an accessibility feature but an adaptation of
the core system. The sighted user does not require the app to carry out this
function as they would do it themselves, hence the difference between issues of
outright accessibility and the adaptation of feature set. Any modifications
would in most cases be processor intensive and thus require better hardware or
improvements in regards to resource utilisation within the software. This is an
obvious trade-off in the sense that if a person is not applying the work-rate
then the machine has to step in and contribute accordingly.
This issue is broad and with many complications; take for example some very
recent developments such as that of Ariadne GPS, which allows a blind user to
explore a map of their immediate surroundings. This however contains no frame
of reference as to geographical bearings (up, down, left, right). Thus, whilst
the blind user may know the names of the streets around them, they have no
context for this data besides vicinity; simply enabling exploration of the map
by dragging their finger around the screen with VoiceOver reciting details of
locations.
It is this distinct difference between fair and rightful accessibility
alterations (adjustments) versus actual deliberate and specific modification
(adaptation) that requires appreciating.
The best practice
Simple accessibility alterations can often be implemented at the source code
level and this can be done at a very low cost; making accessibility to all
intense purposes free of charge, or at the least cost-effective to incorporate
easily into the overall unit cost (Apple utilise this paradigm). To reiterate;
if the accessibility elements are coded as a core construct during the initial
design process then this bypasses the potentially huge costs of insertion after
completion.
In most instance the screen reader is able to access the varied elements of
information on display in the app; however this usually amounts to basic
textual information, buttons and graphics (although this is about their
location, it also covers the concept of labelling to ensure correct usage). A
greater understanding of the concepts of accessibility and adaptation is
required by both user and developer alike. Blind users have a new inflated
expectation of fully inclusive accessibility, whilst software developers are
not only limited by their understanding of the issues present, but a lot of the
time unaware of the blind user’s requirements at all. Not only do developers
need to increase their awareness of accessibility implementation but also to
expand their knowledge and experience so as to cover the needs of the whole
user community. Put simply, application developers would benefit from a
prescribed (and enforceable) accessibility guideline (standard of compliance).
The wider issues of adaptation within technology is that developers need to
move beyond the simple implementation of accessibility techniques and embrace a
more in depth and rounded modification process; one borne of consultation and
standardisation. This also ignores the fact that whilst many developers are
meeting these basic standards, many are not and implementing these standards
would hopefully pull more into line.
What now?
The reality of today’s market place is that the firms entrenched in the
adaptive technology sphere need to reposition their services; moving from that
of manufacturer per se, to that of modifier. To start working in consultation
with mainstream suppliers, thus enabling them to provide fully accessible
products that also have feature rich alterations to enable broad usability for
the blind user. These methods could include the options for in-app purchasing
of true adaptive layers for use alongside the mainstream accessibility
standards; hopefully removing the need for any secondary devices at all.
In conclusion the most prevalent change needs to come from the developers. With
lobbying and encouragement from the government (much like with web
accessibility), as well as larger public bodies and charities, the issue needs
to be conveyed so as accessibility issues are handled correctly, with only a
handful of cases requiring full adaptive changes; those cases include screen
content that is continuously, and dynamically, generated, as well complex
visual implementation (the most obvious product affected by these being GPS
systems).
External links
User Experience - Accessibility (Apple) -
http://developer.apple.com/ue/accessibility/a
Regards,
Neil Barnfather
Talks List Administrator
Twitter @neilbarnfather
www.neilbarnfather.com
www.TheOEF.org
@TheOEF
TalkNav is a Nuance, Code Factory and Sendero dealer, for all your
accessible phone, PDA and GPS related enquiries visit www.talknav.com
URL: - www.talknav.com
e-mail: - service@xxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: - +44 844 999 4199
Other related posts:
