From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: blinux-list at redhat.com (Linux for blind general discussion) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 15:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "Accessibility in Fedora Workstation" (fwd) In-Reply-To: <202208161814.27GIEKUm029606@nfbcal.org> References: <202208161814.27GIEKUm029606@nfbcal.org> Message-ID: List-Id: Hi Brian, Thank you for providing this context. What concerns me about your example is even greater. Just how does a member of the general public, finding they must use a screen reader for any number of reasons, even learn they have such an option as that switch? Karen On Tue, 16 Aug 2022, Brian Buhrow wrote: > hello. Having participated in the debate with Microsoft about narrator, let me see if I > can provide a bit of context. When Microsoft began putting a real effort into Narrator, there > wer those of us who were concerned that it would put Freedom scientific out of business and, > thus, potentially, remove accessibility choices for blind users, especially for folks who were > currently employed using JAWS or, at the time, GW Micro. Exhibit A was, and is, Apple with > VoiceOver. If you want to use Apple products with access technology your choice is, well, > VoiceOver. If it doesn't work for you, well then, tough on you. That's also true of Android > with Talkback and Brailleback. Yes, Brltty works on Android, but it relies on the access > provided by Talkback and Brailleback to get its data, so if Talkback and Brailleback can't see > it, it isn't visible nonvisually. > It takes a lot of effort to make a good screen reader and it takes even more effort to > keep it running well. The argument ran like this: if Microsoft put a huge amount of effort > into getting Narrator working well, would they continue to provide the hooks and data Freedom > Scientific and NVDA needed to make their products work? And, what if Narrator was deemed good > enough by Microsoft, but didn't work for folks who were trying to hold down jobs, but JAWS and, > at the time GW Micro, couldn't continue making their products function because they weren't > getting what they needed from Microsoft? what we said was we didn't want Microsoft to work on > Narrator at the expense of continuing to develop and share their access API's with third party > screen reader providers. > While it's true the accessibility scene hasn't played out exactly as we described it in > terms of the time frame we laid out, it is true that, over time, accessibility options for > Windows users are dwindling. Case and point, if you purchase the tablet version of Windows, or > the stock home edition of Windows, by default, you cannot use any screen reader other than > Narrator on that installation unless you flip a magic switch in that installation to enable the > full Windows experience. In addition to allowing third party screen readers, that switch also > allows the installation of unsigned software outside of the Microsoft store. Microsoft claims > they will never disable the ability to flip that switch, but the fact that we are one switch > away from not being able to use the screen reader of our choice on Windows, is, in my view, an > erosion of access. Remember, there was a time when Microsoft said it would never release a > Windows version 11. > > So, while it may be that our message was mis-interpreted, and we may have not stated it as > well as we should have, the goal of the message was, in fact, to expand accessibility choices, > not to diminish them. > > -Brian > > >