[Promotion-technology] Off-screen Models

[Samuel Joehl]

While I think your point about limiting employment options is valid, I think in some ways that these "screen access solutions" can also increase opportunities as well.  Take, for example, a shared computer environment in a corporation that has a rigid I.T. policy which prevents the installation of unauthorized software on an unauthorized workstation.  This would preclude the installation of video intercept or mirror drivers by anyone who does not have administrative access to the machine.  With these more unconventional screen access programs, an employee could gain access to a restricted workstation which is shared by their sighted counterparts, provided that the software being used works with the AT product.  I face just such a situation at my own job.  I feel there is room for both types of products on the market, and think that evaluators, rehab agencies and others responsible for making decisions regarding the purchase of AT need to become more-informed on how these
 different solutions work and their limitations.
Steve Jacobson <steve.jacobson at visi.com> wrote:  There has been a stir on the GW Micro lists regarding an article on the Freedom Box web site. The article is critical of the methods used by the older Windows 
screen readers 
for getting information which requires drivers to populate off-screen models. The implication is that the "mirror" drivers in VISTA are an example of unneeded 
intrusion 
into the operating system. The solution is, of course, the approach used by Freedom Box which uses no graphics drivers at all. Some see this article as outright 
marketing disguised as research, and I have often felt that way myself about the way Freedom Box markets their stuff. However, I think there is a larger issue and 
I'm 
wondering if there is a way for us to get more information. 

There are several inexpensive screen reader alternatives now including the Freedom Box System Access screen reader and there is the Nonvisual Desktop. I think 
there is another Open Source project as well. If my understanding is correct, it is quite possible to develop a screen reader that provides very good support for 
anything that uses MSAA and/or has its own interface such as a document object model to get information. That means that a program like System Access can do 
a pretty good job with Internet 
Explorer, Acrobat, Microsoft Office, and the Windows operating system, and any other applications that use the above approaches. However, if one gets outside 
this area, such programs will likely not function and there are 
likely no workarounds. 

What worries me is that these cheaper programs are attracting educational and other customers away from the traditional screen readers and one can hardly blame 
them. However, many jobs depend upon software that is not in this category but is relatively accessible thanks to off-screen models. Part of our free market system 
is that companies will find their slice of the pie, but I am also afraid of what this kind of marketing could do to narrow our employment possibilities. 

I think we need to understand better what the limits of a program like System Access really are so we can talk intelligently on this subject. I was quite surprised when 
I tried an older version of this program with Microsoft Office. it didn't work half bad. However, where exactly does a program like System Access stop working? Are 
they right? Do Window-eyes and JFW charge us lots of money to support off-screen models that are becoming obsolete, or is a program like System Access making 
its money by grabbing the customers using the easiest applications while leaving the rest of us out in the cold? Is there anyone among us who would have the time 
to explore this thoroughly so we could understand this better? While I am not ready to be critical of System Access for skimming off the easiest customers, I don't 
think we should let there article go unchallenged if it truly is marketing disguised at research, and if the conclusions it draws hurts our employment opportunities. The 
main conclusion that the off-screen model has a limited life span is likely correct, in my opinion. What is missing from this article is any discussion of the limitations of 
not using an off-screen model, which applications don't work. The article makes it sound as though there is and A or B choice, use old unreliable expensive and 
time-limited approaches, or use the new perfect, modern and futuristic approach that their product just happens to use with no loss of functionality. 

The article can be found at

http://freedombox.cc/~mattc/mirror-driver-paper.html

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson




_______________________________________________
Promotion-technology mailing list
Promotion-technology at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/promotion-technology

-------------- next part --------------
With these more unconventional screen access programs, an employee could gain access to a restricted workstation which is shared by their sighted counterparts, provided that the software being used works with the AT product.  I face just such a situation at my own job.  I feel there is room for both types of products on the market, and think that evaluators, rehab agencies and others responsible for making decisions regarding the purchase of AT need to become more-informed on how these different solutions work and their limitations.
Steve Jacobson <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
wrote:
There has been a stir on the GW Micro lists regarding an article on the Freedom Box web site. The article is critical of the methods used by the older Windows
screen readers
for getting information which requires drivers to populate off-screen models. The implication is that the "mirror" drivers in VISTA are an example of unneeded
intrusion
into the operating system. The solution is, of course, the approach used by Freedom Box which uses no graphics drivers at all. Some see this article as outright
marketing disguised as research, and I have often felt that way myself about the way Freedom Box markets their stuff. However, I think there is a larger issue and
I'm
wondering if there is a way for us to get more information.
There are several inexpensive screen reader alternatives now including the Freedom Box System Access screen reader and there is the Nonvisual Desktop. I think
there is another Open Source project as well. If my understanding is correct, it is quite possible to develop a screen reader that provides very good support for
anything that uses MSAA and/or has its own interface such as a document object model to get information. That means that a program like System Access can do
a pretty good job with Internet
Explorer, Acrobat, Microsoft Office, and the Windows operating system, and any other applications that use the above approaches. However, if one gets outside
this area, such programs will likely not function and there are
likely no workarounds.
What worries me is that these cheaper programs are attracting educational and other customers away from the traditional screen readers and one can hardly blame
them. However, many jobs depend upon software that is not in this category but is relatively accessible thanks to off-screen models. Part of our free market system
is that companies will find their slice of the pie, but I am also afraid of what this kind of marketing could do to narrow our employment possibilities.
I think we need to understand better what the limits of a program like System Access really are so we can talk intelligently on this subject. I was quite surprised when
I tried an older version of this program with Microsoft Office. it didn't work half bad. However, where exactly does a program like System Access stop working? Are
they right? Do Window-eyes and JFW charge us lots of money to support off-screen models that are becoming obsolete, or is a program like System Access making
its money by grabbing the customers using the easiest applications while leaving the rest of us out in the cold? Is there anyone among us who would have the time
to explore this thoroughly so we could understand this better? While I am not ready to be critical of System Access for skimming off the easiest customers, I don't
think we should let there article go unchallenged if it truly is marketing disguised at research, and if the conclusions it draws hurts our employment opportunities. The
main conclusion that the off-screen model has a limited life span is likely correct, in my opinion. What is missing from this article is any discussion of the limitations of
not using an off-screen model, which applications don't work. The article makes it sound as though there is and A or B choice, use old unreliable expensive and
time-limited approaches, or use the new perfect, modern and futuristic approach that their product just happens to use with no loss of functionality.
The article can be found at
http://freedombox.cc/~mattc/mirror-driver-paper.html
Best regards,
Steve Jacobson
_______________________________________________
Promotion-technology mailing list
Promotion-technology at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/promotion-technology