A few years ago, when I still wrote my now defunct blog, Blind Confidential, I posted an article called, “The Model T Syndrome” in which I blasted Android accessibility for being sorely substandard. Recently, my old buddy and fellow Freedom Scientific refugee, Marco Zehe wrote an excellent piece called “Switching to Android Full Time,” in which he, with great detail, discusses his attempt to use an Android based phone after having been an iPhone user for four years. Rather than repeating all of the problems here, I recommend you read Marco’s item if you care to learn all of the details of how and why Android is an inferior system to iOS.
Today, I will not write about specifics of any particular technology, there’s plenty of places a blind person can read detailed reviews of virtually all things out there that claim to be accessible. Instead, I want to explore the questions, “Why are blind people willing to accept and even celebrate substandard accessibility?” and “What is the difference between usable and actually accessible?”
The Model T Syndrome
If General Motors or any other automobile company came out with a new model that, technologically, was similar to the ancient Ford Model T, everyone who considered the vehicle would laugh out loud. When Google, Amazon, Microsoft and other hugely wealthy and powerful corporations release a screen reader with functionality similar to JAWS for Windows 1.0, though, the community of people with print impairments send out celebratory tweets, write complimentary blog posts and describe such as “progress,.” Why do we, as a community, accept technology that is third rate and, more so, why would we celebrate a major step backward in accessibility just because it is there?
To me, if a new screen reader comes out on a mobile device that is even slightly less functional than Apple’s VoiceOver on its iOS devices, it should immediately be condemned by our community in the same way that motorists would condemn a new Model T arriving at their local auto show.
Amazon and Accessibility
Earlier this week, I posted an article here in which I celebrated a number of different ways we can now access books and other publications on our iOS devices. This year, we’ve seen some new software releases that expand our possibilities a lot and, indeed, this is real progress.
On the same day that the NLS BARD Mobile app was released to the Apple AppStore, Amazon announced its new Kindle Fire tablet devices. One section of their press release proudly announced that Kindle Fire now has a screen reader and that the device was “accessible” to people with vision impairment.
I’m a skeptic, blogger and occasional journalist so, instead of celebrating the new Amazon screen reader, I went off to find some blind people who had beta tested this device for Amazon and learned almost immediately that it is actually less accessible than standard Android devices with the single exception that a user with vision impairment can read Kindle content on a Fire. I also learned that many of the apps that ship standard on a Fire, apps entirely under the control of Amazon engineers, remain inaccessible. While I’ve still not touched one of these units (they aren’t in stores yet), the information I could glean from beta testers tells me that Amazon has released a Model T era screen reader and, we, as a community, should condemn them for asserting that their device is accessible when, in fact, it is partially so at best.
By advertising that the Kindle Fire is accessible, Amazon is lying to our community and, in reality, is doing nothing more than making a pathetic attempt to comply with legislation like 21st Century Video and Communications Act of 2010 (CVAA) while ignoring the spirit of the law, namely, that all mobile technology must be accessible by October 2013.
Usable Versus Accessible
Some blind people, especially those who choose to use Android devices, will claim that these are accessible. I can’t disagree more. Apple’s iOS devices are accessible out-of-the-box, Android systems are, at best, usable in some areas but, on a systemic level, not truly accessible.
What, you ask, is the difference between accessible and usable? To me, a system can be described as “usable” if some but not all of its features can be accessed by a person with a print impairment but may require a workaround, may contain unlabeled buttons which, of course, one can memorize or create a dictionary entry for, may require the user to guess at what something does and some to many of its standard features are not fully accessible. A blind person who gets a new iPhone can use every feature that Apple includes by default on iOS; this is absolutely not true for Android or Kindle Fire so, while they may be partially usable, they are absolutely not accessible.
In fact, Google, Microsoft and, now, Amazon are perpetrating a crime against our community by even claiming that their devices are accessible. By making such a pronouncement, blind people less plugged into the technology community will easily be fooled into buying such a device and, when they get it home, in many cases,, they can’t even turn the accessibility on without sighted assistance.
(Author’s note: After writing and posting the original version of this post earlier today, I have learned that some Android devices do have features that allow a blind user to set it up independently. I’ve also learned that some Android devices have proprietary “skins” that can break accessibility badly. If you plan on exploring Android, make sure you get one that is endorsed by another blind person.)
What Is Real Accessibility?
In my mind, Apple is the only company that provides an experience for users with print impairments that can be described as accessible right out-of-the-box. If you buy a new Macintosh, you plug in the power cord, turn it on, wait a couple of minutes and, if you haven’t done anything to suggest you can see the screen, it will start talking on its own. This is not true for Windows or standard distributions of GNU/Linux based computers so they are not actually accessible to someone who may need to set things up without sighted assistance.
Apple’s handheld devices, iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch do not start talking automatically but all a user needs to do on iOS 6 or earlier is to triple click the home button or, on iOS 7, ask Siri to turn VoiceOver on and speech and braille starts. This is not true for Windows Phone, Android, Kindle Fire or any other handheld devices on the market so, no mobile devices other than those from Apple are fully accessible either.
The question returns to, why, if Apple has set the standard, does every other OS vendor choose to provide a Model T level of support when a brand new Cadillac is available from their competition? More to the point, why would any screen reader user be willing to accept and even celebrate such substandard support in a device?
The Gratitude of Blind People
When I first started working for Henter-Joyce, Ted Henter taught me that access technology does not “help” anyone and that we should not expect users to be grateful because we sold them a tool. If a sighted person goes to Sears to buy a chainsaw, they don’t run around thanking Craftsman for helping them. If the person uses their new chainsaw to prune their trees, they’ve helped themselves; if they leave the saw in the shed to rust no one has been helped at all. A screen reader is a tool that people with print impairments can use for a variety of purposes, including helping themselves but the vendor of such software hasn’t helped them by accepting their hard earned dollars in payment for said tool.
Nonetheless, while working at HJ/FS, I received countless thank you notes from users for working on a tool that they paid a lot of money to buy. Why do we thank vendors for selling us a tool? I didn’t thank the company that made my electric toothbrush, coffee maker or stereo so why, pray tell, would I thank Apple for making my screen readers?
Some gratitude is well placed. The guys who make the NVDA screen reader and my free software hacking buddy, Joanie Diggs work for activist wages and spend a huge amount of their personal time attempting to improve free screen readers. These people aren’t selling anything but, rather, doing this important work because they know it’s the right thing to do. Please do thank these folks if you use these programs.
Accessibility Is Not A Favor
I believe that many blind people think that accessibility is, somehow, not an integral part of technology and, when it is there, it only exists due to the kindness of a developer. This community acts as if accessibility is a favor being done for us by a profit making corporation and that we should be grateful that it’s there at all.
The United States Department of Justice has ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to web sites. Accessibility is not a favor or something nice a technology company provides if they want to, it is the law. Accessibility is a basic human right, there are no technological barriers to full accessibility anymore and, as it is now our right, it is an essential component of any technology product. If it is not included in the design of the software from day one, the company making such technology is intentionally discriminating against our population and should face legal action for doing so if they do not take on a rumination task immediately.
There is (with the exceptions above) no reason to thank anyone for making their technology accessible and it is essential that we condemn as discriminatory any company that either is not fully accessible today or willing to provide the community with its remediation plan, including schedule immediately.
CVAA
Soon, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will issue its rules for enforcing CVAA. Until such rules are officially in place, we cannot know exactly what will and will not be covered by this important bit of civil rights legislation. One piece we do know, however, is that all mobile communications devices (mobile phones, tablets, and the like) must be accessible. As a community, it is essential that we insist that the definition of “accessible” be as broad as possible, accepting that Apple’s iOS level of accessibility is the minimum standard for anything that attempts to use the word “accessible” in its advertising. If we accept marginal usability as “accessible” we remove any incentive for Google, Microsoft or Amazon to become actually so. Substandard accessibility is the “whites only” sign of the 21st Century and we must refuse it entirely or live with it forever.
Conclusions
-
Apple, especially in its mobile devices, is today’s leader in out-of-the-box accessibility. Macintosh accessibility, however, is no better than adequate but, compared to what Microsoft provides, it is really quite good. A Windows user can do better if they install either the free NVDA or one of the high priced screen readers from access technology companies and, for most users, the Windows/NVDA combination is an excellent choice and has a terrific price/performance ratio.
-
People who need accessible technologies must insist on true accessibility, rejecting all substandard solutions as using such will only encourage substandard accessibility in the future.
-
People who use access technology must understand that second rate accessibility is tantamount to discrimination and, rather than celebrating such as progress, should reject it out of hand.
-
claiming that substandard accessibility is good because it provides “choice” is a failed argument as said “choices” will never be accessible if we, as a community, accept such.
-
Gratitude for any tool sold to us is misplaced. Accessibility is not a favor, it’s a right!
I am not an android enthusiast, simply an experienced user. I have both iOS and Android devices (and many older devices running previous solutions from the older generation of smartphones)
I simply state that all platforms fall short in terms of accessibility or usability for some tasks and/or users.
I believe that statements like “iOS is more accessible” or “Android is more accessible” simply muddy the waters for people trying to understand what each platform has to offer.
Some basic truths:
1) Can A blind user activate the device when they get it
On both iOS and Android devices running the stock experience from Apple or Google the answer is unequivocably yes.
For Android any phone or device that runs the stock OS can launch the screen reader without sighted assistance. which amounts to 100s of devices by a number of manufacturers.
2) Can a blind user control and use the phone
Both iOS and Android have a fully functional screen reader that allows braille, voice and magnification.
3) Are all third party apps included on the phone or in the app store fully labelled or usable by a blind person
The answer for both platforms is that some are and some are not. Each manufacturer decides which apps to include in their phone. Apple does catch most of the unlabelled apps they ship with the phone (but also they write most of them). The 1 good thing is that if you get an app on Android that isn’t; you can return it without effort as there is a 15 min return policy on all app purchases and there are a lot more free apps to choose from. Heck, if the only issue you run into is unlabelled buttons, you can even label them yourself.
4) Does Android have anything to offer above what iOS has?
Yes and extremely so:
– there are a larger variety of gestures and they are even configurable (i.e. you have gestures for back, main, recent apps, etc) and if you don’t like the back gesture, you can change it.
– GPS on android is vastly superior to iOS (i.e. Nearby Explorer vs Seeing Eye GPS is night and day)
– google Now & Search on Android is more proactive and refined for getting you the information you need, when you need it – i.e. see http://is.gd/UiCl4b
– You can connect your device to a wifi network and browse file shares and copy files from and to your device just like on a PC
– TTS engines are available to any apps as they are a core part of the OS. This means your screen reader can use Pico, eSpeak, Ivona, Acapela, SVOX and many more
– Input methods are a core part of the OS, this means you can use input methods anywhere (i.e. different keyboard or flexi)
– Voice recognition is vastly superior on android; again, because you can use google’s engine or any third party engine, not as an app but as a core backbone of the OS
– Many users will find the Braille output more informative on android (especially in the latest beta versions)
– Talkback and other services are updated regularly and not only as part of an OS revision which means issues are often fixed faster, without waiting for a major OS release
– High Contrast Black is far more achievable on Android than iOS (although both platforms offer invert functions – no one really likes this mode, as pics such as family photos look like aliens)
etc…
Should we push for a higher degree of functionality and support for blind users? Yes, both platforms have areas for improvement. Don’t just ask for it, demand it, as it’s your right.
Chris,
Rather than sitting on the sidelines, jump in and help out because as you well know as a former software engineer, these problems don’t exactly fix themselves. It usually requires a highly technical blind developer to make those subtle but game changing fixes.
The actual ratio of blind software engineers to sighted ones is so incredibly low that it’s no wonder the products out there now are not where they should be. If there were no software engineers who spoke Hebrew, as a randomm example, the quality of tools to produce rtl language software would be significantly reduced. In a similar fashion, if there are virtually no blind software engineers out there, then those sighted debs who bother with a11y only can push things so far.
First, I rarely approve anonymous comments but as I have a sneaking suspicion I know who you are and because the comment you made here and on the “Death Of” article were certainly thoughtful enough to allow for you to remain anonymous.
The subtle things that make the difference between a good and an excellent accessibility experience may require the insight of blind software engineers, managers, product managers and such but getting the basics right can be handled by a clever intern. If I understand the Android accessibility API, to label a button is as simple as typing a word or two into the structure that contains all of the rest of the information in a control.
It also doesn’t require a blind software engineer to read a report from an automated test tool that says something like, “Error: Text label missing in control.” This is pretty simple and, if Google specifications contained a text description as a requirement for every control, the user experience people can even come up with real catchy labels and all.
Of course, I know of one blind hacker of the highest order working at Google. The Legendary Doctor TV Raman is there. I’m told that Google’s internal development tools are not fully accessible either so Doctor Raman can’t use the same tools as his sighted colleagues. This is probably just fine for Raman, he invented and probably uses emacspeak, a bit of software I really like but that would be mind boggling unfamiliar to any blind hacker under the age of about 45 (I surveyed as many young blind hackers I could and find that among those who use GNU/Linux systems, few use emacs with or without Raman’s extensions) so how would a blind software engineer get along at Google if they had to use Google’s tools?
In his other comment, the anonymous poster suggested that some of the innovations we made in JAWS, a screen reader, were originally in emacspeak, a talking text editor that thinks it’s an operating system. Lots of interesting ideas were explored there and in proprietary ghetto applications way back when. A screen reader gives a user access to the same programs as sighted colleagues use; except for my FSF friends and Doctor Raman, I don’t know a single person on Earth, sighted or otherwise, who uses emacs full time. People want and deserve access to the same programs as everyone else and saying otherwise is promoting segregation, self segregation or otherwise.
Of course, if Google called me and offered a contract for, say, blindness accessibility user interface consultant, I’d jump at the opportunity. Of course, because Raman thinks emacs has the best interface ever, expressed in the completely bizarre keymaps in ChromeVox, I won’t hold my breath.
I do know a lot of blind software engineers out there on the contract market. These guys and gals are shit hot toolers any company that wants to do accessibility would benefit from. Use the contact form on this page to send me an email directly and I’ll put you in touch if you read this and you’re interested.
I guess I never really thought about systems such as Windows being partially inaccessible. So thanks for giving me some food for thought. One thing which I have always wanted screen readers to do though was to work in Safe Mode, and perhaps in other areas where computers are in a somewhat unusable state. I’ve read that Window-Eyes now works in Safe Mode, but I don’t use Window-Eyes due to the cost involved. Perhaps a working screen reader would’ve come in handy during the 2 times that my Dell laptop stopped working. I got it 2 years ago as a Christmas present, and it worked fairly well up until about the summer of 2012. I booted the thing up one morning and it took a really long time–longer than normal–to start Windows. I knew my sighted life-skills tutor was coming later that day so I stopped messing with the laptop and started on something else. When he came I asked him to look at my laptop and he did. We had to call Dell, which I suppose is a post inandof itself. I guess it was a good thing in a way that my laptop started emitting musical tones while we were on the line with the technician. It turned out that my hard drive became corrupt, and we had no choice but to send the whole machine back to Dell. They replaced the hard drive, and I received my laptop back in mint condition. However, I wasn’t so lucky earlier this year when the laptop decided to stop working again. As is often the case these days, I wanted to listen to some music on the laptop. So I took out a CD from my vast collection and carefully put it in the drive and shut the door. I had Winamp set as my default player at the time, and within a minute or so it came up and the CD started. But just as soon as the music started it stopped. So I hit alt F4 to get out of Winamp, checked my title bar with modifier + T, and there was silence. So I opened up the door to take the CD out of the drive, but it wouldn’t open. Then I began hearing a weird clicking sound followed each time by a soft squeak. We called Dell, but they told us the thing was no longer under warranty. Luckily, both my tutor, my next-door neighbors and a downstairs neighbor all gave me recommendations of people who could try and fix my laptop. I ended up settling on my tutor’s recommendation for reasons I don’t wish to get into on here. Basically what we now know is that the motherboard fried, and my laptop is no longer usable. I’m supposed to be getting someone’s refurbished Toshiba laptop, but that hasn’t happened yet. I’m eagerly awaiting the news on that one though. But my point in all this is simply that a working screen reader would have saved me a lot of time and effort in at least diagnosing the problems with my Dell laptop.
I think the reason why blind folks accept and are grateful for accessibility solutions that seem to only half work goes outside of the subject of tech itself. We as blind people are continually told, by sighted and blind people alike, to be grateful for whatever we get from the world, even if it is snips and scraps and leftovers. The mark of a so-called “good blind person” is one who is forever polite and grateful and never complains about anything. If you dare complain or demand anything, your benefactors will see this as a bad attitude and might well just take it away and you’ll be left with nothing which is what you’d deserve anyhow. This is the way I see it. It’s wrong but it’s what we’re told and something a lot of people swallow whole without question. In short, you could say, “sure it’s buggy and a memory hog and only half works, but it’s better than nothing.”