Quite the contrary, the existence of a scripting language takes away the excuse from mainstream developers as they can now manipulate their program via scripts and cannot tell the Access Board that they cannot do Section 508 compliance. At FS, we forced a number of big players to either write scripts on their own or pay us to do it which got some software used by the Federal Government accessible and, hence, more people with vision impairment into jobs.
cdh PS: I've been involved in this argument for nearly 12 years and I can't help myself from writing about it. Suicide may be the only way out... Nah, I'll just have more coffee! On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:07 AM, Scott Howell wrote: > > I think there is no reason to ever fear that VOiceOver would become > like JAWS, Window-Eyes, or any other screen reader. I don't know > that I myself have much use for scripting, but it is an option that > software vendors are going to use as an excuse to avoid making their > apps accessible. I think instead as one person pointed out, is a tool, > which can extend the functionality of VoiceOver and this offers some > real benefits in dealing with complex situations. So, I understand the > concerns, but I can see the benefits and why screen readers are going > this direction. After all, look how long it took before Window-Eyes > took on scripting. This was done not so much as to be competitive I > bet as much as some situations have become complex enough that "set" > files just couldn't handle it. > > On Sep 7, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Jes Smith wrote: > >> >> Thanks for that reassurance that voice over will not become like >> jaws. >> >> Jes >> >> On Sep 7, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Chris Hofstader wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Probably because I was once a VP at Freedom Scientific, I see the >>> value in and strongly support adding scripting to VO. >>> >>> I agree that using scripts to launch applications from within a >>> screen >>> reader should be discouraged and I agree that some other things you >>> mention in your email should be avoided as there are other >>> techniques >>> to get the same job. >>> >>> The fear that "VO will turn into JAWS for Macintosh," is mostly >>> unfounded though. The reason JAWS needs scripts for virtually every >>> application it supports is that they have an OSM and, given relative >>> screen coordinates can tease the text drawn directly without MSAA or >>> iAccessible2 involved. This helps make the completely inaccessible >>> into something that is marginally and sometimes very accessible. >>> >>> VO has no OSM. Even with the new scripting facility, it cannot >>> correct the owner drawn interfaces (I've been trying to get VO and >>> MacSpeech Dictate to talk and its a hemorrhoid of a project). What >>> AppleScript gives us is the ability to add features to a combination >>> of programs where the authors did a decent job of making their >>> software accessible but the user would benefit from some very deep >>> contextual information that would be very difficult for a generic >>> API >>> to deliver. >>> >>> I read a post (I think on this list) about reading table headers in >>> the iWork spreadsheet. the post said it works great if the headers >>> are on the top row but starts to fail if they are elsewhere. >>> >>> So, why not write a script that allows multiple tables, each with >>> their own headings to exist in a single spreadsheet? No API is >>> smart >>> enough to do this but, I would think that a script driven >>> communication system between VO and the worksheet could do it in a >>> fairly straight forward manner. This script could also "mangle" the >>> worksheet file name in a manner that is unique so, if you reload the >>> same document, your headers will be there for you. Even cooler, if >>> you open a spreadsheet with a very similar name (Sales Report >>> 1/1/2009, Sales Report 2/1/2009, etc.) they will probably have the >>> same format and the user can be offered the opportunity to load last >>> month's headers. >>> >>> There are lots of ideas that can be expressed in scripts that a >>> generic screen reader cannot understand. >>> >>> Happy Curt Flood Day, >>> cdh >>> On Sep 7, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Jes Smith wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi all. >>>> >>>> I am greatly concerned that voice over now has support for >>>> scripting. >>>> Especially now that you can make voice over launch an application >>>> with >>>> a single script. I'm not talking about glancing at the time or >>>> seeing >>>> how many unread messages you have in mail. I'm talking about >>>> opening >>>> up apps like mail or Safari from within Voice OVer. I am concerned >>>> that voice over is starting to become a bit like Jaws, and that if >>>> we >>>> don't get a grip on it now, voice over will become Jaws for >>>> Macintosh. >>>> I, like Mike Arrigo, don't feel that launching apps is something >>>> that >>>> should be implemented in a screen reader. Also, I fear that the use >>>> of >>>> apple scripts will replace the responsibility of an application >>>> developer to make their application accessible right out of the >>>> box. >>>> On the Windows side, if something isn't accessible with Jaws, you >>>> just >>>> download scripts for it. What if you go to another person's >>>> computer >>>> and they don't have the scripts for the app you are trying to use? >>>> It's my belief that a certain article from the NFB prompted this >>>> scripting support. Folks, the thing I like about voice over is that >>>> it >>>> gives the blind user the same conceptual layout and information as >>>> it >>>> appears on the screen to a sighted user. No other screen reader >>>> does >>>> this, and we should keep voice over as a screen reader, and let it >>>> be. >>>> If we don't, eventually, when we try and contact an Apple >>>> developer, >>>> they will either ignore us, or will say, "Well, just download the >>>> scripts for my application and you will have access." >>>> Any thoughts? If someone disagrees with me, I'd love to hear your >>>> arguments, not so that I can persuade you to agree with me, but so >>>> that I can have a new perspective. >>>> >>>> Jes >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
