[gui-talk] Fwd: E-Access Bulletin: Issue 113, May 2009

Wed May 13 12:49:10 UTC 2009

 From:    Dan Jellinek dan at headstar.com
 To:      eaccess at headstar.com

++E-ACCESS BULLETIN
Access To Technology For All, Regardless Of Ability
- ISSUE 113, May 2009.

A Headstar Publication.
http://www.headstar.com/eab/ .

Sponsored by:
Ford Motor Company
( http://www.ford.co.uk ).

Please forward this free bulletin to others (subscription details at the
end). We conform to the accessible Text Email Newsletter (TEN)
Standard:
http://www.headstar.com/ten/ .

++Special Notice: Building Perfect Council Websites '09
- Accessibility On The Agenda At Headstar/Socitm Conference
http://www.headstar-events.com/councilwebsites09/

Accessibility of pdfs and online forms; and implementation of the new
international web access guidelines WCAG 2.0 are among workshops
on the programme at Building Perfect Council Websites '09.

The conference, now in its fifth year, is the major annual meeting for
local authority web professionals - around 300 attended last year.
Facilitators of our accessibility sessions include Ted Page of PWS, a
leading accessibility expert who has worked extensively with the BBC.

A partnership between E-Government Bulletin and the Socitm Insight
Programme, this unique event draws on the collected wisdom of ten
years of Socitm's annual 'Better Connected' review of all UK council
websites. Have a look at our website today to see the latest programme
details, and book your place:
http://www.headstar-events.com/councilwebsites09/

[Special notice ends].

++Issue 113 Contents.

News: E-Access '09 Special Reports.

01: Analyst Urges New Approach To Technology Inclusion
- 'Special' access add-ons are restricting creativity.

02: Accessibility 'Not Fringe Issue' for IT Purchasing
- Public sector buyers could influence market for better.

03: Call for Tougher European Access Laws
- Stronger legal foundations would benefit all, says developer.

News in Brief: 04: Skill Share - Volunteer network; 05: Orator
Correction - BlackBerry reader set for July; 06: Techshare Call -
RNIB conference.

Section Two: 'The Inbox' - Readers' Forum.
07: Foolish Moves - Text-to-speech book reader debate continues; 08:
E-Book Lament - one comedian's woes; 09: Moodle Mission - Call
for software assistance; 10: Chair Talk - Julie Howell responds.

Section Three: Opinion - Accessibility versus affordance
12: Unasking The Right Questions: we have been approaching the
accessibility debate in the wrong way by adding on 'special' access
features after products have been created, says analyst Bill Thompson.
What is needed is an approach based on 'affordance', which examines
the potential of technology for everyone, regardless of ability.

[Contents ends].

++Section One: News.

+01: Analyst Urges New Approach To Technology Inclusion.

Technology designers should move away from providing add-on
'accessibility' tools for people with disabilities towards designing with
all users in mind from the outset, technology broadcaster and analyst
Bill Thompson told delegates at Headstar's E-Access '09 conference (
http://www.headstar-events.com/eaccess09 ).

Instead of thinking about accessibility as a separate design aspect,
designers should consider the concept of 'affordance', defined as what
a technology can allow all users to do, whatever their abilities,
Thompson said in his keynote address.

"After all, technology is there to mediate between us and the world,
and all technology is about changing, enhancing or correcting our bare
capabilities to allow new things to be possible.How many of you can
see the moons of Jupiter with your naked eye, or run at 80 miles an
hour? The additive power of technology is as true of the telescope and
the car as it is of the internet."

A focus on 'affordance' would lead to a more flexible approach that
would help everyone bridge skills gaps, he said. "Affordances matter
equally to the 'abled' as to the 'disabled', and so the same design
methods can be used, and outcomes can be evaluated in a much
broader way. This allows us to start to move away from the current
model, in which we have 'assistive' technologies to overcome
'deficits' that make some users 'abnormal', to one in which we all have
skills and abilities that vary along a large number of axes."

Moving technology companies towards such a change in approach
might require incentives, Thompson said, but these need not be
negative, such as imposing a tax on failure. Instead, "We could nudge
them to do the right thing by offering benefits and tax breaks for those
whose choices are more in line with this point of view, perhaps
limiting access to government support services, guaranteed bank loans
and the other benefits that businesses are currently calling for to those
who will offer tools, sites and services that can be used by all taxpayers
and not just those with 20/20 vision and high levels of manual
dexterity", he said.

Ultimately, everyone would gain, Thomson said. "We've taken the
easy path so far, but I would speculate that interfaces designed for all
will not only be more usable by mainstream adopters, they will be
more powerful. And they will unleash a wave of creativity not only
from those of us who are already well served but from the millions
upon millions who are currently excluded."

For a full edited transcript of the speech, see section three, this issue, 
or
see our EAB Live blog:
http://www.headstar.com/eablive/?p=287

+02: Accessibility 'Not Fringe Issue' for IT Purchasing.

Accessibility to people with disabilities should be a primary factor
driving IT purchasing decisions within the public sector, a leading
expert in the field told Headstar's e-Access 09 conference. Sean Smith,
who leads on accessibility policy within HM Revenue & Customs
(HMRC), told delegates: "Disability is not just a fringe issue. What we
have now is going to be here for many years to come, so we've got to
work hard at making sure that what we buy is accessible."

In a large organisation with thousands of staff and providing hundreds
of online services, it is far cheaper to ensure systems are accessible at
the outset than to make changes later, Smith said. "Cost is an
increasingly important facet. We have a large number of staff, around
170,000 pages of content and 100-200 online services, so whenever we
have to make a change, it's expensive and we have to make sure we get
our priorities right."

Smith said procurement should be used as a method of bringing about
change in the IT industry, by influencing suppliers to make their
products more accessible. HMRC chairs the Business Taskforce on
Accessible Technology (BTAT), an organisation formed by the
influential body representing both public and private sector
organisations, the Employers' Forum on Disability. "We are,
fundamentally, just a buyer of software, but within the business
taskforce we can use our combined commercial power to influence the
industry to make more accessible products."

As well as compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA),
there are genuine business and financial gains to be had from
incorporating an accessible approach to IT, such as better retention of
staff and more efficient service provision, Smith said. "Yes of course
we want to be DDA compliant, but there's a lot more to it than that. We
also see, fundamentally, that there's an absolutely solid business case in
making systems accessible and usable."

Note: This story first appeared in our sister publication, E-Government
bulletin. You comment on it now, at:
http://www.headstar.com/egblive/?p=216

+03: Call for Tougher European Access Laws.

A more solid European legal foundation is needed to enforce
technology accessibility, a leading software expert from Yahoo! told
E-Access 09.

Artur Ortega, 'accessibility evangelist' at Yahoo! Europe, said that
ensuring more accessible products were developed would be a
challenge, but that a legal basis for accessibility would actually impact
positively on suppliers.

"At the moment, we can only preach accessibility, because there's no
legal requirement as such. If more and more countries get a legal
foundation for it, I think the IT industry would say - okay, it's a
requirement, we're going to [uphold] it."

This would ultimately improve product design and lower costs, Ortega
said

Nina Warburton, director of design consultancy Alloy (
http://www.thealloy.com/ ),
urged an end to over-complicated design for everyday products such as
mobile phones, saying all technology should be intuitive, comfortable
and easy-to-use. Although numerous products are created with the
intention of making life easier, for many users - including those with
disabilities - the opposite is often the case, she said.

"Inclusive design is just good design - it's as simple as that. We need
to make inclusive design the mainstream."

And you can comment on this story now, on EAB Live:
http://www.headstar.com/eablive/?p=290

++News in Brief:

+04: Skill Share: Assistance with digital skills should be offered to
those with disabilities via a nationally co-ordinated volunteer network,
delegates heard at the National Digital Inclusion Conference, hosted by
UK Online Centres and DC10plus. One conference workstream
worked on drafting a digital inclusion manifesto, to be published in the
summer:
http://fastlink.headstar.com/diginc2 .

+05: Orator Correction: Contrary to our report last issue, the Orator - a
text-to-speech screenreader for BlackBerry phones - has not yet been
released. The device is still in 'pre-alpha' stage, and an alpha version
will be showcased at the US National Federation for the Blind
convention in July:
http://fastlink.headstar.com/blackberry1 .

+06: Techshare Call: A request for papers has been announced for
Techshare 2009. Hosted by the Royal National Institute of Blind
People (RNIB), the London event, on 16-18 September, will explore
how digital technologies can support people with disabilities. Anyone
wishing to submit a paper should contact the RNIB before 15 May:
http://www.techshare.org.uk .

[Section One ends].

++Sponsored Notice: Adept Transcription
- Alternative Formats At Affordable Prices.

When you want alternative formats for disabled colleagues, customers
and staff, call Adept.

Formats we produce include audio, audio description, Braille, BSL,
Easy Read, e-docs for websites, large print, Makaton, Moon and sub-
titles, at prices from a penny a word.

Whether handling a newsletter, training DVD, equality scheme, public
service leaflet, contract or consultation, we provide:
- One-stop shop for all formats
- Products quality-checked by users
- Corporate presentation including your house style
- Fast turnaround of one document or thousands
- Multi-format discounts
- Accessible packaging

Contact us at:
Tel: 0208 133 5418 (precede with 18001 for typetalk)
Email transcription at adept-uk.org

[Sponsored Notice ends]

++Section Two: 'The Inbox'
- Readers' Forum.

Please email all contributions or responses to:
inbox at headstar.com .

+07: Foolish Moves: Richard Morton of consultants Accessible Web
Design has contributed online to our ongoing debate over whether
publishers should be allowed to disable the text-to-speech function on
electronic book readers (see
http://www.headstar.com/eablive/?p=244 ).

"Although I can see the arguments from both sides, it seems foolish for
publishers to object to the text-to-speech facilities," Richard says.
"They may well have a legitimate case, but the negative publicity
generated will be bad for everyone.

"As has been pointed out, synthesised speech is not of the same quality
as, say, Stephen Fry's voice and is unlikely to be so in the near future.
My money is on the publishers giving in eventually, and probably
trying to claim the moral high ground."

+08: E-Book Lament: On a related theme, regular reader and stand-up
comedian Chris McCausland writes in to lament "the complete
inaccessibility of the world of e-books."

He writes: "Despite PDF files being accessible in Adobe Reader, the
protected PDF formats via Adobe Digital Editions are completely
inaccessible to screen-reader users. This seems a bit silly as electronic
text is surely the way to make hundreds of thousands of previously
inaccessible texts accessible to blind people.

"This inaccessibility is also something that is not advertised,
mentioned or even alluded to on the Adobe website or any of the sites
of the e-book retailers.

"I am still in the middle of quite possibly the worst case of customer
services I have ever experienced, from both Random House and an
American company called ebooks.com. Despite the book I purchased
being a Random House publication and the book being purchased
through a link on their site to the third party retailer, Random House
refuse to even look into the accessibility issues on their e-books and
see if the security settings can be manipulated to allow screen-reader
access.

"On the other hand ebooks.com seem to have the policy of putting their
fingers in their ears and two months on from the purchase, I still don't
even have a refund from them. It seems to be the biggest case of legal
inaccessibility to information, next to the touch-screen. It is driving me
insane!"

+09: Moodle Mission: Rachel Ethier Rosenbaum, president of the
Carroll Center for the Blind in Newton, Massachusetts and an "avid
reader" of E-Access Bulletin, writes in seeking advice on accessible
use of the e-learning platform Moodle, for an exciting new project.

In 2003, she writes, the Carroll Center began providing courses over
the internet on how to use Microsoft's workplace applications such as
Internet Explorer, Excel, PowerPoint, and Word for blind people using
screen-readers and for the partially sighted using magnifiers.

"Then in 2004, we discovered that the Washington State School for the
Blind in Vancouver, Washington was also developing online courses,
so we formed a consortium in order to avoid duplication, share ideas
and agree on a priority list for future course development."

Rachel continues: "As time went on, it became apparent that what was
really needed was standards on accessibility and usability, so that
programmers and web-developers would have reliable guidelines to
create (or amend) web pages that do not inadvertently "lock out" the
blind users by the nature of their designs.

"In 2006 a formal consortium was formed, now called CANnect. In
2007 we adopted Moodle - which we initially heard about through E-
Access Bulletin - as our learning management platform.

"We are currently porting all of our existing courses over to Moodle,
and will be using the software exclusively for future course
development. We are now seeking other organisations or individual
programmers who have already started tweaking Moodle to create
more accessibility and usability for blind/visually impaired users, so
we can learn from you and perhaps interest you in using CANnect to
post your already-developed courses.

"If you are that person or are aware of such an organisation, please
email our executive director, Cheryl Edmonds on
Cheryl.edmonds at cannect.org . We are really eager to learn about your
efforts."

[Editor's note: if you do respond to Cheryl, please copy us on at
inbox at headstar.com so we can report back on progress to our
readers.]

+10: Chair Talk: Julie Howell, director of accessibility at web
designers Fortune Cookie and former chair of a committee developing
a British Standard on web accessibility [BS8878], writes in to respond
to comments made in last issue's Inbox by Gustaw Kon, who
questioned the reasons behind Julie's recent decision to step down as
committee chair.

She writes: "After six years working on the development of PAS 78
[the 'publicly available specification' that is precursor to the standard]
and then BS 8878, I felt it was the right time for me to step aside and
give another member of the committee the opportunity to lead the
progression of this crucial work.

"I was extremely pleased to be the founder chair of [the British
Standards technical committee on accessibility] IST/45, and am very
satisfied that my contribution in putting the committee together gives
the new standard the very best chance of success. I have complete
confidence that under the acting-chairmanship of Jonathan Hassell, the
committee will continue to succeed in its aims."

[Further comments please to inbox at headstar.com].

[Section Two ends].

++Special Notice: Fortune Cookie
- Web Sites That Really Work.

Fortune Cookie's dedicated web accessibility team makes sure that
everyone finds the web sites we design easy to use. As well as being
accessible, Fortune Cookie sites are beautiful and deliver stunning
return-on-investment. They're award-winning too. In 2007, our work
was nominated for major web design awards 11 times.

Legal & General, Kuoni, Diabetes UK, FT Business - just some of the
big name brands on Fortune Cookie's client list.

Every business can benefit from making its web site more accessible.
If you'd like to know what accessibility can do for your business, talk
to Fortune Cookie.

Visit our web site at:
http://www.fortunecookie.co.uk

Julie Howell is our Director of Accessibility. Email Julie at:
Julie.Howell at fortunecookie.co.uk .

[Special notice ends]

++Section Three Opinion

+11: Accessibility versus affordance

[Editor's Note: The following is an edited transcript of Bill Thompson's
keynote speech to E-Access '09, Headstar's annual conference on
access to
technology by people with disabilities.]

Unasking The right Questions

By Bill Thompson.

Accessibility has always been an issue for information and
communications technologies, but for most of the 60 or so years we've
had stored-program digital computers, it was a secondary
consideration.

Getting physical access to early computers like EDSAC and ATLAS
involved being in the right room in the right city at the right time,
whether or not you were a wheelchair user or had poor vision.

When the number of people with easy and affordable access to the new
technologies of desktop computers, network access and online
publishing tools was relatively small, accessibility for those who
needed special provision could be handled using one-off solutions,
often built by those concerned since they were technical themselves.

Over the years this has led us to design systems for the majority and
then adapt them to work for those who are somehow different, and we
keep thinking about 'accessibility' and 'usability' as separate, almost
orthogonal aspects of design. Unfortunately, this remains the dominant
model, and it has now become a barrier to future progress because it
encourages designers to think about creating tools and services for the
'normal' population before considering accessibility.

We need to change this approach, and to move away from solving the
'problem' of accessibility to a view of design in which it stops meriting
separate consideration.

We need to stop giving designers the opportunity to talk about
'accessibility', and instead collapse the distinction that is causing us so
much trouble.

Instead of thinking about 'access' at one end and 'usability' at another,
we should attempt to recast our debate in terms of what technology
does for all of us, not just those whose have 'special' requirements.

After all, technology is there to mediate between us and the world, and
all technology is about changing, enhancing or correcting our bare
capabilities to allow new things to be possible, transforming the
otherwise inaccessible and unperceivable into sense data, or subjecting
the physical world to the influence of enhanced motor skills.

How many of you can see the moons of Jupiter with your naked eye, or
run at
80-miles-an-hour?

The additive power of technology is as true of the telescope and the car
as it is of the internet. Technologies sit between us and the world and
allow us to perceive it more intimately, measure it more precisely,
influence it with greater precision and scope, and reach out to others
without concern for distance or - in many cases - language.

They do that for us all, irrespective of our capabilities. But different
technologies offer different affordances, depending on where we
encounter them and - most importantly - our own capabilities. We can
only use a telescope to see the craters of the moon if we have adequate
vision, though of course interpreting the data from a radio telescope
does not necessarily require this.

We have too often been content to build technologies which only serve
to enhance the capabilities of the 'modally-abled', those whose
physical and cognitive abilities cluster around the modal value for
modern humans. We clearly disregard those whose abilities are much
lower than the norm, but also tend to forget those who may be better -
they tend to cope, of course, and do not usually ask for special
attention.

So how should we frame our debate if we move beyond what I think is
a dangerous attempt to retain the distinction between 'usability' and
'accessibility'? I think it is time to explore the idea of 'affordance', as
it could offer us a way forward.

Bill Gaver, Professor of Design at Goldsmiths College, has an
interesting take on this. In a 1996 paper, he wrote: "Affordances go
beyond value-free physical descriptions of the environment by
expressing environmental attributes relative to humans. For example,
the physical measure of height, which has no inherent meaning, can be
recast in terms of the affordance of accessibility, which does. Because
accessibility emerges from the relation between elevation and people's
physical characteristics, it is an objective fact about a situation."

The idea of accessibility - here used to mean whether a shelf or
window can be reached - as something which emerges from a
relationship between a technology and a user is one we might build on
in our attempt to reconcile the usability-driven design approach and
our concern over whether people can use specific technologies.

The key is the interaction between the technology and what it offers
and the ability of the user actually to make use of that offer, as it
allows us to sketch out a model of augmented capability that covers all
of us, not just those who might be classified as 'disabled' in some way.

If we start to frame the issues facing users whose capabilities deviate
from the norm in terms of affordances rather than simply of
accessibility, this might free us from the 'modal totalitarianism' that
infects so much design, whether in products like screens and keyboards
or on-screen in websites, widgets and services.

Affordances matter equally to the 'abled' as to the 'disabled', and so
the same design methods can be used, and outcomes can be evaluated
in a much broader way. This allows us to start to move away from the
current model, in which we have 'assistive' technologies to overcome
'deficits' that make some users 'abnormal', to one in which we all have
skills and abilities that vary along a large number of axes.

This is going to be very important in the near future, as those of us who
first encountered digital technologies when we were young and able-
bodied, begin to age. I wear glasses to read from the screen, and I
know that my high-frequency hearing has been damaged by years of
gigs and loud music in headphones.

I can feel my cognitive abilities going, and can see a world where I will
be, as Shakespeare might have put it, sans eyes, sans teeth, sans
keyboard, and in the near future I will need assistive technologies even
more.

If we think differently about design and consider issues of accessibility
in terms of affordances, then we may move closer to another goal -
that of exposing and understanding the impacts of the negative
'externalities' of unusable sites and services.

To an economist, externalities are effects on parties that are not
directly involved in a transaction, such as the impact of a polluting
factory on the health of non-employees in the surrounding area. The
costs of the transaction do not therefore reflect its full costs or 
benefits,
once these externalities are taken into account. Externalities can be
positive, such as the network effect that comes from more and more
people using an online service, or negative.

By and large, businesses will try to bring more of the positive
externalities in-house - we might see battles over copyright as an
attempt by rights-holders to internalise all the benefits of creative reuse
- but keep negative externalities away, and off their balance sheet.

A more integrated approach to design, however, one that classes all
users as equal and equally deserving of service, could make it harder
for those who disregard the needs of the non-modal population to treat
the costs as an externality to be met by extra funding, charitable
engagement or personal expenditure on assistive technology. And by
bringing the costs back to those who have given us this world of
dysfunctional technology, we might persuade even the accountants and
management consultants who have for so long disregarded the needs of
anyone outside the mainstream, that there are sound financial reasons
for becoming more inclusive.

We would not even need to tax them to achieve this (though this would
be one approach): we could nudge them to do the right thing by
offering benefits and tax breaks for those whose choices are more in
line with this point of view, perhaps limiting access to government
support services, guaranteed bank loans and the other benefits that
businesses are currently calling for, to those who will offer tools, sites
and services that can be used by all taxpayers and not just those with
20/20 vision and high levels of manual dexterity.

The transition from the current approach, which we could call modal
oligarchy, to one of design for all, will not be easy. Those of us within
one standard deviation of the mean may worry that elegant tools and
desirable products that 'just work' will no longer be available, that
innovation will be limited and that we will have to work harder to get
what we want from websites.

But no user interface is intuitive, no keyboard obvious, no website
'natural'. Just as learning language rewires the human brain, so
learning how to use network computers requires us to link old skills in
new ways. We've taken the easy path so far, but I would speculate that
interfaces designed for all will not only be more usable by mainstream
adopters, they will be more powerful.

And they will unleash a wave of creativity not only from those of us
who are already well served but from the millions upon millions who
are currently excluded.

If we believe in the transforming power of these new technologies, if
we want the network revolution to succeed, and if we desire the best
and brightest to join us in this brave new world, then we need to ensure
that the barriers to access are removed at all levels. That means
campaigning to bring down all of the digital divides, not just the one
between rich and poor but between the majority of users for whom
most technology is designed and those of us whose capabilities lie
more than one standard deviation from the mode.

The conversations taking place at this conference, e-Access '09, are
part of that process, but I think it is time to push for something more. I
think that this should be the last e-access conference. Next year I hope
to see you all here for e-affordance 2010.

[Section three ends]

And you can comment on this story now, on EAB Live:
http://www.headstar.com/eablive/?p=287

[Section Three ends].

++Special Notice: Web Accessibility Forum.

Accessify Forum is a discussion forum devoted to all topics relating to
web accessibility. Topics cover everything from 'Beginners' and 'Site
building and testing' through to projects such as the new accessibility
testing tool WaiZilla and the accessibility of the open source forum
software itself.

All you need to register is a working email address, so come along and
join in the fun at:
http://www.accessifyforum.com .

[Special notice ends].

++End Notes.

+How to Receive the Bulletin.

To subscribe to this free monthly bulletin, email
eab-subs at headstar.com
with 'subscribe eab' in the subject header. You can list other email
addresses to subscribe in the body of the message. Please encourage all
your colleagues to sign up! To unsubscribe at any time, put
'unsubscribe eab' in the subject header.

Please send comments on coverage or leads to Dan Jellinek at:
dan at headstar.com .

Copyright 2009 Headstar Ltd http://www.headstar.com .
The Bulletin may be reproduced as long as all parts including this
copyright notice are included, and as long as people are always
encouraged to subscribe with us individually by email. Please also
inform the editor when you are reproducing our content. Sections of
the bulletin may be quoted as long as they are clearly sourced as 'taken
from e-access bulletin, a free monthly email newsletter', and our web
site address:
http://www.headstar.com/eab
is also cited.

+Personnel:
Editor - Dan Jellinek.
Reporter: Tristan Parker.
Editorial advisor - Kevin Carey.

ISSN 1476-6337.

[Issue 113 ends.]

Regards Steve
Email:  srp at internode.on.net
MSN Messenger:  internetuser383 at hotmail.com
Skype:  steve1963