COMPUTER SCIENCE UPDATE - SUMMER, 1997 Published By National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science President, Curtis Chong 20 Northeast 2nd Street Apartment 908 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413-2265 Phone: (612) 379-3493 Internet: chong99@concentric.net ================================================================= Table of Contents JAVA; ANOTHER DIMENSION TO CONSIDER FOR GUI ACCESS by Brendan McKeon Using TELNET in the GUI Environment by Darrell Shandrow The Bumpy Road to Full Internet Accessibility by Nancy Massey massey@libertynet.org More Correspondence with the Shodor Foundation by Curtis Chong ================================================================= JAVA; ANOTHER DIMENSION TO CONSIDER FOR GUI ACCESS by Brendan McKeon Editor's Note: The following article was posted on the Internet on the GUISPEAK LISTSERV. Brendan McKeon is a second year graduate student at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland. He is involved in a project aimed at exploring novel approaches to GUI access for the blind. He is currently "playing" with Microsoft Active Accessibility and hopes to have his Masters thesis and a "semi-usable" prototype screen reader accompanying it. Inquiries should be directed via e-mail to Brendan McKeon at bmckeon@tcd.ie. Since Java is so new, there is a lot of confusion over what it is, never mind where it is going. This is an attempt to explain what Java is and some of the accessibility related issues involved with it. To begin with, Java programs run in what is called a "virtual machine"--essentially, this means that the Java program is completely unaware of the operating system that it is running on. So, a Java program can run as happily on a PC as it can on a Mac or a Unix box; from the Java program's point of view, they all look the same. Secondly, in order for Java programs to be able to do anything useful, a set of system classes are provided. Classes are the building blocks of Java programs. The system classes provide facilities ranging from input and output to security management and user interface components. All of these classes look the same from the Java program's side, but the implementations differ depending on the actual system that the Java program is running on. These classes tend to use the native system facilities to provide whatever it is that that class is supposed to provide. For example, suppose we have a Java program that uses a Push Button. It does this by creating an instance of the Java Push Button class. On a windows machine, the system-provided Java push button class responds by creating a native Windows button, and does whatever is necessary to make the Windows button appear like a Java button to the Java program. Similarly, on a Mac, the system classes will end up creating a Mac push button, but again, as far as the Java program is concerned, the button is just a standard Java button. (This is obviously a big advantage, programmers; you only have to write your program once, and it will then be able to run on a PC, a Mac or a Unix machine without any changes.) The Java standard provides quite a few such classes: for user interface elements such as push buttons, radio buttons, check boxes, list boxes and so on. So, if a Java program only uses these comparatively few system-provided elements, when running on windows, the end result is that the corresponding standard windows controls will be used. In other words, if a Java program creates a Java list box, a real Windows list box is created, and any running accessibility programs will be able to treat it as they would any other standard Windows list box. Now things get awkward. Unfortunately, the initial Java standard only provided for a few simple user-interface elements--push buttons and so on. There were no tab controls, no tree views, no toolbars, and no status bars. And, just as happened with Windows 3.1 a while ago, programmers decided to write their own. Lack of a given element isn't the only reason for going the D.I.Y. (do it yourself) route. Since the various Java implementations tend to use native controls, elements will look different across the different platforms that the applet is run under. The only way to get a consistent look across all platforms is to write your own versions of the elements. This D.I.Y. approach basically involves using Java's low-level graphics primitives to draw something that visually looks like a toolbar using lines, pixels, boxes and bitmaps. So, the result is something that may visually resemble, say, a toolbar but which looks to the system like nothing more than a collection of lines and dots. In other words, in Java, while the system provided controls tend to be accessible, as their Windows counterparts are, these custom controls are every bit as inaccessible as their Windows counterparts are. It's the same old story, just a different location. Recently, Microsoft introduced "Active Accessibility" for Windows. This is a standard which, in theory at least, allows programmers to make their D.I.Y. controls accessible to screen readers. So, despite the fact that a programmer may create a custom toolbar built from raw lines and bitmaps, the system can still find out that it is actually a toolbar and that it contains so many buttons, each having certain names. Well, that's the story as far as Windows programming goes. But what about Java programming? So far, there's nothing. Currently, any Java applet which uses the do-it-yourself approach will be inaccessible, and it won't have any way of making itself accessible either. But (a big but) in theory, there is no reason why a Java version of "Active Accessibility" can't be introduced. If that happens, then Java programs would be able to tell the system "Oh, that mess of pixels over there is actually a toolbar," and so on. Right now, there does seem to be a window of opportunity; Microsoft recently announced a set of Java classes--called "AFC"--which provide many of the user interface elements missing from the original Java standard. If these classes catch on (which looks likely), and if they support this hypothetical "Java Active Accessibility" standard, then, as if by magic, Java programs that use AFC would be accessible. This would be wonderful. But at the moment, this is just a dream. Firstly, this "Java Active Accessibility" standard does not yet exist. Secondly, this standard would have to be put into the AFC classes; this would obviously take a while to happen. Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, it will always be possible for people to write inaccessible Java programs. How do you persuade programmers to make their programs compatible with "Java Accessibility?" (Remember that while Microsoft could potentially require accessibility before awarding an application the Windows logo, they have no say whatever over what goes on in the world of Java.) My guess is that ultimately, if Java does succeed in becoming a big software platform, then mostly only those programs released by the big players will really be accessible. And there's probably always going to be a set of Java programs written by college students designed solely for the purposes of making their home pages look "better" or trendier. The chances of these ever being accessible are pretty small. (to be quite honest, in the majority of cases, you're not missing much.) At the moment, however, these comprise the majority of Java applets that people come across in their day-to-day web browsing. So to summarize the above, right now, Java programs that only use the simple system provided user interface elements should be accessible. Those which take the do-it-yourself approach will not be accessible. But if a "Java Accessibility" standard is introduced, these programs have the potential to be made accessible. Furthermore, if this standard is used by Microsoft's AFC package--which fills some of the holes in the current Java standard--and if Java programmers use AFC instead of going the do-it-yourself route, then Java accessibility will be greatly improved. I hope some of that made sense. If you've any questions, feel free to e-mail me at bmckeon@tcd.ie. Using TELNET in the GUI Environment by Darrell Shandrow Editor's Note: Darrell Shandrow can be reached via e-mail at nu7i@henge.com. I am a member of the National Federation of the Blind and the technology specialist at the Colorado Center for the Blind in Denver. My position includes, among many other things, training blind people to use screen access hardware and software to accomplish their educational and vocational goals. Of course, I am moving my students to the graphical user interface, where we are encountering many successes--and challenges. Please feel free to ride along on yet another interesting journey into the challenges of accessing the GUI as a blind person. Oh, by the way, please don't forget to drop by afterwards to leave your comments and suggestions. This article addresses the problem of using text-based Telnet programs in a graphical environment. As blind computer users, we face special challenges when using these text-based programs in a non-text-based environment where all the "standard" DOS stuff is, so to speak, "out the window." Here are some of my views on the situation. Traditionally, blind people use the Internet via text-based UNIX shell accounts. We run DOS-based terminal emulation programs such as Procomm, Telix and Commo. All the prompts and text are spoken automatically because they are written to the screen using standard BIOS calls. This fact, along with robust screen reading software for the DOS environment, makes it fairly straightforward to use many Internet services such as E-mail, Telnet, FTP, IRC, Lynx, and anything else one can use in UNIX. If you hear too much information being spoken, you can easily silence your speech and use screen review commands. When we use our Unix shell accounts to run IRC to chat with users or Telnet to access bulletin board systems, the text written to the screen is typically sent through DOS BIOS. Thus, we have good automatic speech. This works extremely well, and the use of these two Internet services almost always goes smoothly. Today, the Internet and other computer applications are moving to graphical platforms such as Windows, OS/2, and the Apple Macintosh. These platforms have varying degrees of accessibility. In a growing number of situations, it is possible for blind computer users to do many things as well as sighted users. With varying degrees of success, we can use screen access software in Windows to browse the World Wide Web with Netscape, Internet Explorer, or just about any other graphical web browser. We can easily use Eudora to read and send electronic mail. However, my experience has been that in the graphical environment, terminal emulation (as in VT-100 emulation) is still a problem. I am not talking about those job situations--and there are many--in which we can use terminal emulation under Windows. In those situations, as in customer service environments, the applications are typically customized, using macros, to allow the blind employee to obtain essential information with maximum efficiency. Automatic speech is not required and is usually undesirable in these situations. What I am talking about is the use of a terminal emulation interface such as Telnet to access other computers interactively through the Internet with a Windows-based screen access program. The graphical Telnet clients have problems with accessibility when it comes to the interactive speaking of information. These problems result from the lack of BIOS calls in a graphical environment. Without BIOS, there is no automatic speech. Yes, text is scrolled to the screen as it would be in a text-based (DOS) environment, but unless the screen reader is designed to deal with this situation, there is, by default, no automatic speech. This is fine for standard controls like dialog boxes and menus, where the information is fairly specific and predictable; due to the nature of Windows controls, the screen readers seem to have an easier time dealing with these things. However, scrolling text from an interactive connection is much less predictable, and the Windows screen readers of today don't seem to perform very well. Since it is unlikely that there will ever be anything similar to BIOS calls in the graphical environment, I propose the following choices to solve the problem I have described here. Text-based Telnet client: A text-based Telnet client could be written to work much like the FTP client that comes with Windows 95. This program is text-based and works extremely well in a DOS box with a DOS screen reader. Similarly, a Telnet client could be written to use Windows 95 (or other GUI) networking resources. This client should have solid VT-100 and ansi-bbs emulation, as well as support for file transfers with Zmodem and kermit. Ideally, it should be able to do an "rlogin" when that service is required. Emulating DOS Packet Drivers: Another possible solution would be to write a program that could use the built-in networking resources of Windows 95 to emulate a standard DOS packet driver. This would work like the cslip and slipper drivers currently available. If this were done, programs like Minuet and NCSA Telnet could be used in a DOS box. It would allow for some flexibility. If this solution were adopted, the packet drivers should be non-obtrusive, so that one could still use Windows Internet applications like Netscape, even when the DOS client is running. Emulating virtual Com Ports: The final solution I would suggest is to emulate a virtual com port so that one could use a DOS-based terminal emulator like Procomm or Commo over a Telnet connection. I am not certain how this one could work. You would need to have a way to specify the address of the host to which you wanted to connect. If this solution were adopted, one could use which ever program they liked and have complete functionality when connecting to a BBS or attempting to establish some other interactive text-based session. Since shell accounts are becoming less and less available, I feel that this is extremely important. It will be very useful if a blind person who has only a PPP connection can still use their computer to connect to services like GBX and NfbNet. I hope this generates some lively discussion and some real solutions. The Bumpy Road to Full Internet Accessibility by Nancy Massey massey@libertynet.org Editor's note: For almost 20 years, Nancy Massey of Massey & Associates has been a computer consultant in the Philadelphia area. She has worked with businesses and nonprofit organizations through initial automation, upgrades, conversions and staff training, as well as the development and implementation of ongoing system strategies. In 1995 she expanded her business to include internet training and accessible World Wide Web site development. She can be reached at massey@libertynet.org or (215) 545-8541. My initial contact with Ms. Massey came about because of an inquiry she made to me regarding the use of Lynx, a text-only web browser. I was intrigued by the work that she was doing and asked her to write an article on the subject. Internet purists might argue that we do not today have "full" access to the Internet, but Ms. Massey's work in this area demonstrates a level of commitment and responsiveness which others in the field would do well to emulate. Three years ago in my home town of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, I attended a convention sponsored by Microsoft. A local group on that agenda professed the idea that the Internet was the real future and spoke of an organization just being formed called LibertyNet. LibertyNet's mission was to bring Internet access to those who would not otherwise have it. That included nonprofit organizations, schools and other members of the community who could not afford computers. As I listened, I knew I was hearing about something that would be critical to my future. Little did I know at the time to what extent. When LibertyNet went beta, they were offering accounts to a group of interested nonprofit organizations. As luck would have it, one of my clients was on the list, and I offered to be part of the beta test cycle. That was when I began to experience the frustrations of following an uncharted path to an unidentified location. But it was as amazing as it was frustrating. I soon discovered resources to astounding amounts of information. Using one of the few books available at the time, I began to learn HTML so that I could design home pages to put onto the Internet. A little over two years ago, I was approached by Liberty Resources Inc., a center for independent living in Philadelphia. They asked if I would be interested in training their people in WordPerfect 5.1. The day before the first training session, I heard that there would be a blind user in the class. I knew that blind people could use computers, but this was my first experience with hands-on training. I told my contact at Liberty Resources that I had no experience in this area, but if they were willing to give me a try, I would handle the training as I always do -- letting the students tell me what they need. The woman was using Vocal-Eyes, a speech output screen reading program for the Disk Operating System (DOS). I was amazed at the technology. Her training went very well, and I continued working with other Vocal-Eyes users, several with low vision. With a hearing-impaired trainee, I wore a voice amplifier. It all amounted to a voyage of discovery for me. Through my work with Liberty Resources, I was introduced to adaptive technology. Since then I have installed and set up various types of adaptive technology hardware and software. Apart from professional enlightenment, the whole experience brought something else of value home to me. No matter our abilities, we all experience frustration and exhilaration in working with computers. But in the end, it is always worth the effort. After completing my first web page and seeing it live, I went to the President of Liberty Resources, Fern Moskowitz, and talked to her about the Internet. She was as excited at the prospect of full accessibility as I, and with the sponsorship of LibertyNet, I began work on the Liberty Resources Inc. web site. The first blind person I had ever trained, Cecillia, became the point person for the project. We began our research. We would be using a DOS based computer and Vocal-Eyes. First, we needed communications software. I did exhaustive searches, scanning over 5,000 use groups, struggling to find speech-friendly software. I finally came across an amazing group using Commo software, one of the few speech friendly programs on the market. I subscribed to the Commo mailing list and began to learn about this great product. After speaking with many users, I downloaded a trial copy of the program. I found that Commo had a powerful macro language that I knew I would be able to use to create logon macros, and I recommended Commo to Liberty Resources as their communication software. We identified a blind computer consultant who had been using the Internet. He created a "set" file for us to use with Vocal-Eyes and Commo. But there were many problems, so it was back to the Internet for answers. I posted messages and looked for a solution. It was at that point that I read about Curtis Chong of the National Federation of the Blind. I e-mailed him and told him about the problems I was experiencing. He spoke to me about Lynx and the -show_cursor parameter, which would instruct Lynx to move the system cursor to any highlighted link. After much trial and error, I discovered that our ISP (Internet service provider) was not speech-accessible. I went to LibertyNet's webmaster and technical director and discussed our problem in detail. Due to their server set up, it would mean changing the server configuration. After several conversations and further research, LibertyNet became one of the few fully accessible web servers on the Net. It was a crowning moment. This change would not only be available for Liberty Resources, but for all LibertyNet users. It paved the way for other blind users. There are now several groups with blind users enjoying Internet access through LibertyNet. I found that Cecilia was still having trouble working from the prompt. Through my participation in the use groups I learned of a product called Internet in a Macro, available for use with Commo. It is a marvelous free macro available on the Internet, written by J.J. Meddaugh, a blind user and long-time proponent of Commo. The macro won't replace Lynx, but will let you connect to your favorite sites through a menu interface. I installed the macro and Cecillia began to surf in earnest. After Cecilia was comfortable with general web surfing, she asked to begin using e-mail. I ordered a box, set up the mailing software used by LibertyNet (Pine), and adjusted the Vocal-Eyes set file, but it just wouldn't work. I went back to Curtis and told him what I was experiencing. He asked me if I had set the speech-friendly option in Pine. I discovered that the version of Pine being used by LibertyNet was an older version of Pine which was not speech-friendly. So, I researched Pine and found the version that was speech-friendly. I also found directions for updating to that version and went back to the techs at LibertyNet. Within days they had upgraded their server and Pine was finally speech-friendly. The entire experience amounted to a tremendous first e-mail lesson for Cecilia and me. A few days later while checking my e-mail, there was a message from Cecilia. One small step for Cecilia, one giant leap for full accessibility. Through this experience, I have learned a great deal about accessible web page design. As so little is written on the subject, I had to blaze my own trail. I have discovered that it takes very little effort to create an accessible web page. And, all I learned I applied to the Liberty Resources site to make it fully accessible. One great reward was learning that Liberty Resources Inc. was named Site of the Month for October, 1996, by LibertyNet -- and as it happens it occurred during Disability Awareness Month. This past year has been a long and bumpy road into the unknown, but for each of us who takes the trip, we pave the way for those coming behind. Today there is an increasing amount of information available about Internet access, and there are some marvelous organizations and user lists available to help along this path. I have been fortunate to be a part of this exciting time. I have watched those who thought they would never be able to use a computer surf the Internet and access the abundance of information on the web. I've seen them discover a whole new world. They can share the wonders of automation and e-mail. They can reach out to others with common interests, no matter where they are on the planet. They can enjoy unprecedented access to information through outstanding resources such as the Internet's Electric Library, a speech-friendly library on-line. Through the aid of individuals known only to me by their e-mail addresses, through issue-sensitive organizations such as LibertyNet, and through the dedication of individual users like Cecillia, Liberty Resources Inc. has attained full Internet accessibility. What next? Now we know it can be done and we know what is available to make it happen. So it is imperative that each of us make the effort to ensure that everyone, regardless of financial status or ability, gain access to the Internet, the most powerful and exciting resource of our time. Resources: Curtis Chong, President, National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science: Chong99@concentric.net Commo: http://www.cris.com/~Jmeddaug/commo.shtml Commo List Serve: subscribe at -- listserv@server.nlbbs.com Internet in a Macro: http://www.cris.com/~jmeddaug jmeddaug@cris.com Electric Library: http://www.elibrary.com LibertyNet: http://www.libertynet.org Liberty Resources Inc.: http://www.libertynet.org/~libres Cecillia Ramnathsingh at Liberty Resources, Inc.: lriinfo@libertynet.org Accessible Web Page Design Tips: http://www.libertynet.org/~libres/ac_form.html More Correspondence with the Shodor Foundation by Curtis Chong Those of you who read the Winter, 1996, edition of Computer Science Update will remember an e-mail exchange I had with one Robert Gotwals of the Shodor Foundation. It dealt with Braille Remote Learning, an experimental project designed to teach braille to transcribers over the Internet. When the announcement about Braille Remote Learning first hit some Internet mailing lists, a lot of people criticized the effort because of the requirement for participants to use a graphically-based web browser. They said that this requirement essentially made Braille Remote Learning inaccessible to the blind. On behalf of the NFB in Computer Science, I wrote to Bob Gotwals suggesting that he clarify that the program was intended for sighted transcribers. I also suggested that the jury was still out as to whether or not braille, which is essentially a tactual medium, could really be taught to a blind person whose primary interface with the computer was speech. I had thought that, in the main, Mr. Gotwals and I had ended our correspondence on a positive note. As it turned out, the article which appeared in the Winter, 1996, issue of Computer Science Update was published in the Braille Monitor for March, 1997; and it caused a most surprising reaction. On Monday, April 21, out of the clear blue sky, I received the following e-mail message from Mr. Gotwals. Frankly, it caught me by surprise. Here it is: _________________________________________________________________ To: Chong99@cris.com From: gotwals@shodor.org (Bob Gotwals) Subject: March Braille monitor Saw your article in the March 97 Braille Monitor. I'm a little disappointed that nowhere was it stated that the course is and has been accessible since Day One. When you and I were having our conversations, the materials were in development and we expected to not be able to have them readily accessible in time for the initial testing of the materials. We were able to get them ready, in spite of the fact that we did so at our own expense. Your comment " What I do know is that in its present form Braille Remote Learning is not accessible to the blind--nor is it meant to be" is therefore in error. Have you looked at the pages? If you wish to chat about this, I can be reached at e-mail or at (919) 490-1626. We are both interested in increasing the awareness and literacy levels of braillists, especially folks capable of providing that skill. Are you helping or hurting that goal? Want my opinion? _________________________________________________________________ I wrote back to Mr. Gotwals on the same day, and on April 22, he responded, interspersing his responses in my original text. The dialog is reproduced below, with each person's name indicated for purposes of readability. _________________________________________________________________ Chong: Hello Bob: I am sorry that you were disappointed by what appeared in the March edition of the Braille Monitor regarding Braille Remote Learning. The information I had when the article was written was that the course would not initially be usable by somebody who could not see pictures of braille output on the screen. As far as I am aware, this is still correct. If you have information to the contrary, and if you have made additional efforts to make the course accessible to the blind over the Internet, please do provide me with that information. If I was wrong, I will certainly work to see that a correction was printed in the Monitor. Gotwals: I appreciate that there is often a delay in getting stuff published, and I am sure the Monitor is no different. Three months in the print world is actually quite fast. In the electronic publishing world, three months is an eternity. The course is accessible, and has been since Day one. We expended considerable resources to ensure that the course was accessible to all users. We had to take that time away from other braille development work, but we were glad we were able to make the materials available. As I had mentioned before, we had proposed that the accessibility work be done *after* the materials had been developed, the bugs had been worked out, and the courses were ready for "production". Having to do it sooner rather than later did make our task more difficult, but we are grateful for the visually-impaired folks who are actively participating, they are providing substantial assistance to our efforts. Chong: I hope you realize that I can only work with the facts I have in hand. I still do not have any information that would indicate that Braille Remote Learning is a tool that is usable directly by blind persons on the Internet. This does not detract from the value of the course as a learning tool for braille transcribers. God knows we need more of them. Gotwals: I would have hoped that you or someone from the Monitor might have checked. Again, my guess is that the scenario of events was that you submitted your article in December after our e-mail exchanges, then did not see the article again until it "hit the streets". I was mostly disappointed that no one bothered to ask. It's not like I'm hard to locate. The pages are also easily accessible, and any page that uses graphics says "Text Version" at the very top of each page. We've checked pages using lynx, and have run a number of pages through some of the only accessibility checkers, such as "Bobby". Chong: I think that with the facts I had, my presentation in the Monitor was fair and balanced. I understand and respect that you may not see things that way. I have not nor do I intend to say to anyone that Braille Remote Learning is a project without value. It most certainly has value. However, as I said in my article, I do not know whether a blind person can really learn braille if auditory output is the only means by which information is provided. There needs to be other material available (e.g., braille hard copy samples, refreshable braille, etc.). Gotwals: That's part of the experiment. We're doing this work *partly* because we are scientists, and partly because we're trying to provide a service. We won't know if this delivery system will meet a variety of braille literacy needs until we do the experiment. The course actually was never intended to teach braille to visually-impaired folks, but if we can figure out how to make that happen, we'll do so. We don't do anything in terms of reading readiness, i.e. tactile discrim exercises, etc. We've toyed with providing Duxbury files that folks can download, but there has not been lots of demand for the ones we have made available. Chong: I had thought that we had ended our correspondence on a fairly positive note. I am sure you thought so as well. I regret that what appeared in the Monitor did not meet with your approval. However, without additional information, my comments still stand. Gotwals: Me too. I didn't even know about the article until I got several pieces of e-mail from folks not even involved in the program who saw it, and weren't too happy. Some of the comments I received were not happy with the NFB. I chatted with Alison Sherman at the NFB, and conveyed *my* impressions. The article did suggest at the beginning that the conversations were friendly, but there was still sort of a negative overtone to the article. We can't do the experiment of investigating on-line braille instruction without students, including visually-impaired ones. Anything that discourages that community from participating takes the opportunity out of our hands. I don't want to suggest that the journalism was irresponsible, but perhaps it could have been a little "tighter". I *like* to think we're both on the same side, and both want the same thing. I certainly don't mind criticism. That's how things get better. However, I have little patience with criticism that is unwarranted. My students know that I've been at the receiving end of lots of "comments", and we've worked hard to fix what they have suggested. All in all, however, we think things are going pretty well. Chong: Regards, Gotwals: and to you! Thanks for your reply. PS. I'd encourage you to submit this conversation as well. Ask Barbara not to wait three months, however, to publish it! She also might want to solicit the opinions of the 80 or so folks currently participating in the program. E-mail to braille@shodor.org will reach all participants, program staff, and observers. _________________________________________________________________ On April 22, I wrote again to Mr. Gotwals; and on April 23, he responded. Here is the dialog. _________________________________________________________________ Chong: Hello Bob: I have been giving considerable thought to our exchange of correspondence over the last two days, and I must tell you that I am trying very hard not to come away from that exchanged feeling annoyed and more than a bit put out with the way in which you have chosen to deal with me. In all of my communications with you, I have tried to engender good will. Moreover, I have encouraged members of the National Federation of the Blind to support your efforts instead of dogmatically insisting that Braille Remote Learning BE 100% ACCESSIBLE at the outset. Gotwals: I actually think (or perhaps, thought) that we were on "the same page". As you have no evidence that our stuff is accessible, I have no evidence that you've been encouraging support, but I'll take you at your word! Chong: Do you remember the bashing you took when you first announced the project? Many people criticized the work you were doing because participants were required to use a graphical web browser. One of the things you said in defense of your work was this: "This braille ed program is, by the way, part of a larger VI masters degree program that is being developed at North Carolina Central University. The idea is to make a large part of that program accessible over the net, and the braille course is the first test of that concept. We sure would like a chance to make it work....again, if there is a demand that the effort be made to ensure 100% accessibility in the experimental phase, we can pretty much ensure that the experiment will fail." Gotwals: Yep. And as initially designed, it *was* pretty much inaccessible. We did a re-design (to some degree) and spent much more time up front looking at making it accessible than we had planned at that stage of the project. Under the terms of the grant, we were not funded nor committed to accessibility that early on, but I felt, especially after conversations with you and others, that it was important to do things earlier rather than later. But what if *technologically* it had been difficult to do so, *and* the insistence had continued? What would have been our options? Were we willing to risk a lawsuit under ADA or some other statute to continue to do the work? I seriously doubt that my board of directors or executive director would have supported our continuance of this work if that had been the case. You as a computer scientist understand that the technology doesn't always maintain pace with desires, dreams, wishes, and best intentions. As it is, our technical solution is adequate, but that's probably all I can say for it. Fortunately, other people are looking hard at the accessibility issue of Internet resources, and we hope to be the beneficiaries of their labors. We're not charged with that end of the technology. Chong: I interpreted this to mean that during the initial phases of the project, your attention would be focused primarily on making the program work as opposed to making it fully accessible to blind Internet users. After all, I reasoned, the program was aimed primarily at transcribers and teachers. Hence, when I wrote to you, I was trying to clarify our position that accessibility by the blind to your project was, for us, a secondary concern. In short, I was trying to mitigate some of the criticism you were receiving. Gotwals: That *was* the original intent of the program. I didn't get the sense that it was *your* position that accessibility was a secondary concern...I'll certainly go back and re-read correspondence, but I'm not sure that position came through... Chong: If you recall, one of the recommendations I made was this: "I think it is important that your promotional materials clarify that Braille Online is not now accessible to the blind. You might even take this notion a step further and clarify that the target audience for the program consists of sighted people who will be teaching or producing braille." Your response to this recommendation was a simple, "Done." You raised no objection to the statement that "Braille Online is not now accessible to the blind." Gotwals: And again, we changed that position. When you and I were conversing in December, that was a true statement. When the course was opened in January, it was not. Christmas holiday wasn't! Chong: Since that time, I received no word from you--no e-mail, no phone call, nothing. Moreover, none of my colleagues in the National Federation of the Blind reported reading anything from you on any Internet mailing list about any change in emphasis for the project. Based on all of the information I had in my possession, there was no reason for either myself or the editor of the Braille Monitor to do any further checking. Exactly what should we have done differently? I would have thought that you, knowing that I lead a national organization of blind people dealing with computer access issues, would have taken the trouble to let me know that a significant effort had been made to make your course accessible to blind people. Certainly, if you had written to me, I would have done everything possible to change the article which ultimately appeared in the Monitor. Gotwals: Guess we're both at fault. For my part, if I had known our e-mail correspondence was being published, I would have taken the steps to ensure that authors/editors were aware of changes. I had no idea that the article had been published (guess I gotta start reading the Monitor, huh?) until my mailbox exploded. For your part (or that of the editor), I guess I would have liked to have had someone contact me letting me know the stuff was going in, and/or have looked at the pages. Chong: I take exception to your implied criticism of me and the National Federation of the Blind for the way in which we portrayed your program in the Braille Monitor. You say that the journalism could have been tightened up a bit. Frankly, I don't see how. As far as we were concerned, all of our information was current. Gotwals: As above. Again, three months is a long time in the Internet business, as I suspect you know as a computer science professional. On both of our parts, two minutes worth of work would have completely removed all of this time (and bad feelings!) that we're spending on this conversation. Chong: I hope that you will not misunderstand what I am saying here. I have no quarrel with the work you are doing. I am very glad that you and your colleagues have taken the time and effort to work on accessibility concerns. You should be commended for this effort. Because I believe that the work you are doing is important to the blind community, I would like to know more about what you have done to make it possible for blind users of the Internet to participate fully in your program. Those of us who are proficient braille users are keenly interested to know how braille (which is essentially a tactual experience) can be taught using speech output. I would like to know the specific actions you took to ensure accessibility to the project during the early stages. Gotwals: Thanks for those words, and again I think (or hope) we're on the same page of braille! We don't know if it will work either, that's what we're trying to find out! If it works, we'll extend and publish. If it doesn't, we'll publish why not. Again, we're hoping that the work of others to improve the accessibility of Web pages will have an impact on what we're doing. If not, we'll forge our own path as best we can! Chong: Please be assured that all of this correspondence is being forwarded to Barbara Pierce, Editor of the Braille Monitor. Moreover, if you supply me with more specific information about how the program is, today, accessible to the blind, I will send that along as well. Gotwals: Appreciate that extra effort. Simply, any page that has any kind of graphics on it (examples, sentences, exercises, etc.) has a text version that is the first link on the page. Other images have the appropriate "alt" tags embedded. We're encouraging as many visually-impaired students as we can, as much as we're encouraging any participation -- we've advertised to two or three listservs, and have plenty of participants. That's not to say we don't want more, but beginning this summer we'll complete some evaluation work and then promote the course more aggressively!). Chong: In closing, I would like to say that you and I should communicate with each other more often and under better circumstances. I think that both of us can do a lot to improve our relationship. I will always endeavor to ensure that the information I send to the Braille Monitor about your work is complete and accurate. I don't have a lot of time to read the hundreds of messages per day generated by the many blindness-related mailing lists. So please understand that anything you distribute to those lists will probably not be seen by me unless somebody happens to forward a particular item to me. Therefore, I trust that you will continue to keep me informed about the work you are doing by writing to me personally. Gotwals: Will do. Likewise, it's hard to keep up with the listservs. Chong: Yours sincerely, Gotwals: Likewise! _________________________________________________________________ In closing, I would like to present you with two final pieces of e-mail correspondence. In June, I had some time to look at the http://www.shodor.org site. True to what Mr. Gotwals said, the Braille Remote Learning section was fully accessible to my text-only browser. Bob Gotwals and his colleagues are to be commended for putting up a fully accessible web site. I encourage everyone reading this article to check it out and send their comments to Robert Gotwals at gotwals@shodor.org. Here are the two notes. _________________________________________________________________ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:36:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Curtis Chong To: Bob Gotwals Subject: http://www.shodor.org Hello Bob: Time has finally permitted me to take a good look at http://www.shodor.org. Now that I have looked at the Braille Remote Learning section, I must compliment you and your colleagues for doing an excellent job making the material readable by and accessible to people with text-only browsers. Also, your initial program announcement deserves commendation. I, for one, really appreciate the introductory paragraph, which reads: "...the Braille through Remote Learning program is designed to prepare sighted educators and current/future sighted braille transcribers. All materials are accessible to both sighted and visually-impaired students. Text versions of graphics-based pages are available." It makes it abundantly clear that the program, while intended for sighted braille transcribers, is fully accessible to blind or visually impaired persons interested in perusing the material. Congratulations on a job well done! Yours sincerely, Curtis Chong President National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science chong99@concentric.net _________________________________________________________________ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:35:40 -0500 From: "Bob Gotwals ('Bob2')" To: Curtis Chong Subject: Re: http://www.shodor.org Curtis, Appreciate your kind note....again, I think we've been on the same "page" all along, something got lost somewhere... Wouldn't mind seeing your note in the Monitor, but that is, of course, your call! Thanks again! Robert R. Gotwals, Jr. THE END .