[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       olpc-accessibility
Subject:    Re: [laptop-accessibility] How can the XO be made accessible
From:       Peter Korn <Peter.Korn () Sun ! COM>
Date:       2008-01-09 3:38:12
Message-ID: 478441A4.9000102 () sun ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Duane,
>> On Monday 07 January 2008 10:28:41 pm Albert Cahalan wrote:
>> For a long time now, I've thought that accessibility adaptations
>> are kind of the wrong approach.
>>     
>
> I agree.  Too much feature creep and the bloat have traveled into the 
> accessability realm;  People forget that the goals of accessibility are 
> not "The blind can use software XYZ to read or otherwise use this format or 
> file", its really "The blind can read or use this format or file.".  They are 
> not the same, even if they often are treated like each other.
>   

It is true that one of the goals of accessibility is to allow blind 
folks to "read or use this format or file", but there are a number of 
other goals.  For example, there is the goal of allowing legally blind 
folks who nonetheless have and use some vision to utilize a magnified 
(and focus tracking) GUI - same as folks who don't need magnification.  
There is also the goal of allowing completely blind and sighted folks to 
collaborate - in some cases by using the same computer.  And of course 
there are needs of folks with physical disabilities and cognitive 
disabilities - many (most? all?) of whom will want to use the same GUI 
as the bulk of the users of the computer.

>> Perhaps there is a need for both. Common stuff that gets
>> used every day could be written to be optimal for audio control.
>> Random seldom-used things could get the normal treatment.
>>     
> Exactly.  You really don not need to an image application for example to have 
> accessibility controls, at least not for the fully blind.  The reason the 
> partially sighted have more tools and greater ease of use on today's desktop 
> is because as much as the sighted developers may want to help, they still 
> find comfort in the gui.. and this leads to the sighted who are working on 
> helping out blind accessibility to invariably start using or adapting GUI 
> items, or wasting time trying to get GUI's to work with audio...  so the idea 
> of not using the GUI available seems to be a strange and impossible one.
>
> This problem can simply be solved by not giving the accessibility developers - 
> sighted or not - a GUI at all.  In my mind, the perfect interface is one both 
> the perfectly sighted and the perfectly blind can use and be equaly 
> productive in.

It makes a *ton* of sense to allow the wealth of approaches we have 
developed for command line access for the blind (using speech at a 
minimum, but also Braille where available) to flourish on the OLPC.  
There are great tools there, and they can likely provide access 
solutions more rapidly.

As far as "feature creep" and "bloat" go, it is always worth reviewing 
implementations and approaches for this - especially in an environment 
as processor and RAM/flash constrained as the OLPC.  Folks are already 
actively working on the areas that I  believe will be most fruitful in 
reducing RAM and processor requirements.  But an awful lot of the things 
in the GNOME accessibility API are there for good reasons, and are used 
by AT solutions that provide significant value.  The GNOME accessibility 
API is far from the first go-around at this problem, and a lot of 
lessons learned from the past are preserved in it.  We should not rush 
to throw it out, especially just because one subset of folks with one 
type of disability don't want to use it...


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
accessibility mailing list
accessibility@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/accessibility
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]