I have to point out that a big mistake was made in this posting.  Dale
McDaniel of Artic Technologies did not agree with Ted Henter of
Henter-Joyce at last summer's NFB convention.  In fact, Artic uses MSAA
and Dale spoke in favor of using it last summer.  One mistake was made in
placing  this item on the NFB Web site, and another was made in sending it
to lists without
checking it.  Artic has been receiving calls this week about why they
changed their position on using MSAA.  They have not changed their
position.  Let's all be more careful about spreading inaccurate
information.


Jay Leventhal


On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Jamal Mazrui wrote:

> From the web page http://www.nfb.org/csu99win.htm
>
> COMPUTER SCIENCE UPDATE--WINTER-SPRING, 1999
>
> Published By
> National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science
> President, Curtis Chong
> 1800 Johnson Street
> Baltimore, MD 21230
> Phone: (410) 659-9314
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> Developing a Windows Screen Reader
> From the Perspective of GW Micro
> by Doug Geoffray
>
> From the editor: At the 1998 meeting of the National Federation
> of the Blind in Computer Science held in Dallas, Texas, during
> the first week of July, a good chunk of time was devoted to
> presentations from two screen access vendors on the subject of
> developing a screen reader for Windows: Henter-Joyce and Artic
> Technologies; GW Micro was invited to participate but was unable
> to do so for reasons that will become apparent later in this
> article. As Microsoft works continually to improve its operating
> systems and application programs, screen access vendors are of
> necessity forced to keep up or lose their place in the market.
> In other words, whatever Microsoft does to its software, screen
> access vendors are affected--sometimes to the good and sometimes
> not. The presentations by Henter-Joyce and Artic Technologies
> International underscored this fact. Since GW Micro has one of
> the leading screen reading programs for Windows on the market,
> and since I had invited Doug Geoffray to speak on behalf of the
> company, I thought it would be appropriate and even necessary
> for the company's point of view to be presented here.
>
> As you will see, GW Micro has taken the position that it will
> continue to support Microsoft's Active Accessibility programming
> interface, despite many problems and frustrations. As of this
> writing, I can tell you that the wisdom of this decision is now
> beginning to be revealed. Very recent tests conducted at the
> Federation's International Braille and Technology Center for the
> Blind with GW Micro's Window-Eyes Version 3.0 and Microsoft's
> Internet Explorer Version 5 are very encouraging. What I will
> say at this point is that with both programs taking advantage of
> the latest version of Active Accessibility, our ability to get
> at information on hitherto difficult-to-read web pages improved
> dramatically.
>
> Here, then, is what Doug Geoffray of GW Micro has to say:
>
> I wish to apologize for not being able to personally attend this
> meeting. But given the choice of attending this meeting or
> getting married, well, let's say the choice was easy. Sorry
> Curtis but I don't have to spend the rest of my life with you.
> Okay, on to business.
>
> I must preface this by saying I have signed a non-disclosure
> agreement with Microsoft. There are certain things which I can
> not legally discuss. I have already gotten my hands slapped a
> couple of times because of this.
>
> We all know that applications written using standard Windows
> controls and conventions will be completely accessible. For
> example, if the application uses standard edit boxes and list
> boxes and gives the user keyboard access for all options, it is
> going to work out of the box with Window-Eyes. However, because
> competition is so intense for Windows applications, developers
> are confronted with development decisions. Many of those
> decisions deal with how information is presented to and
> retrieved from the end user.
>
> A standard edit box just doesn't have enough pizzazz anymore.
> How about a snazzy super-duper edit control? How about writing
> information vertically instead of horizontally? That will surely
> impress potential users.
>
> Obviously, applications can get much more involved, and this is
> what causes the problem. How can adaptive applications like
> Window-Eyes get into these applications with high appeal and
> make them usable by a blind person?
>
> The fact is that Window-Eyes can't possibly be modified for each
> and every application. Something else needs to be done.
> Microsoft recognized the problems adaptive vendors were facing.
> Microsoft and adaptive vendors got together and hashed out an
> interface (Active Accessibility) which applications could choose
> to use. By choosing to use this interface, adaptive applications
> wouldn't need to guess what was happening. The application could
> just tell the adaptive software directly and/or the adaptive
> software could just ask the application. Wow, what potential!
> The problem is how to create an interface specific enough to get
> the job done but generic enough to encompass the wide variety of
> application programs.
>
> There was much debate over what this technology should and
> should not do. One of the options was whether the interface
> should incorporate an off-screen-model (OSM). Every screen
> reader needs to have an exact image of what is displayed on the
> screen. In the DOS days, the screen reader could simply read the
> information directly from the video card at any time. However,
> with Windows, this is not possible. There needs to be a database
> off screen which represents what is displayed.
>
> Microsoft, in my opinion, made a token gesture by purchasing an
> existing adaptive company's OSM. I say gesture simply because
> there was very little research done before purchasing the OSM.
> Microsoft knew it needed to do something quick to settle people
> down. The purchase was made for an undisclosed amount of money
> but never used. Aside from giving the developer some extra cash
> and temporary marketing hype, nothing further happened. The OSM
> technology was never used and never will be.
>
> We at GW Micro believed in the potential of Microsoft Active
> Accessibility (MSAA) from the beginning but quickly became
> frustrated with Microsoft. The communication between our two
> companies was very sporadic. The beta copies of MSAA were
> plagued with bugs making it impossible to use or test. This went
> on for quite a long time. We began to wonder if MSAA was really
> going to be a reality. So we opted to leave it alone for awhile.
>
> Towards the middle of 1997, we took another serious look at MSAA
> and were pleased to see a somewhat bug-free version. We went
> full speed ahead with integrating MSAA into Window-Eyes. At the
> time, the only applications supporting MSAA were Office 97 and
> Internet Explorer 3.0x. Although these are two huge programs,
> obviously more applications would have to support MSAA, and we
> gambled that more would be coming.
>
> Microsoft released MSAA 1.0 to the public in May of 1997.
> Although this version was lacking in some features, it was
> relatively bug free. It was a good stepping stone into better
> access. The Window-Eyes development continued with a deep
> integration of MSAA. But then Microsoft made a couple of huge
> blunders which many of you are already aware of.
>
> One of the biggest blunders was releasing Internet Explorer 4.0
> with no support for accessibility. Microsoft has been tooting
> their horn about MSAA and how it is the future but then released
> Internet Explorer (IE) 4.0 without it. This was a tremendous
> setback for Microsoft and any credibility it may have had. This
> demonstrates the incredible pressure placed on software
> manufacturers. Get that product out on the market. We can't deal
> with accessibility issues or we'll loose our market advantage.
> Somehow this mentality must change. It would be much more
> desirable if corporations say to themselves, "If we don't get
> accessibility added to our application, we will loose our market
> advantage." I honestly see this day coming, but it won't be an
> easy road.
>
> So, feeling the pressure and potential boycotts, Microsoft
> released IE 4.01 about a month later. This version was supposed
> to add the necessary accessibility components allowing
> applications like Window-Eyes full support. I consider this
> blunder number two. As it turned out, IE 4.01 was just a token
> effort toward accessibility. The communication between Microsoft
> and GW Micro was all but nonexistent.
>
> Along with the release of IE 4.01 Microsoft released MSAA 1.1,
>
> which was required for IE 4.01. Microsoft never told us that MSAA
>
> 1.1 was going to be released. It just happened. Microsoft was
> telling everyone that IE 4.01 and MSAA 1.1 were well tested and
> worked with adaptive applications. Well, I'm not sure what
> software was used to conduct the testing, but there was no
> screen reader for the blind on the market that supported IE 4.01
> and MSAA
>
> 1.1. The latter was and still is plagued with bugs.
> Consequently, we at GW Micro decided to stay with MSAA 1.0.
>
> By this time Microsoft was taking on a lot of well-deserved heat
> about these blunders. Was Microsoft truly interested in making
> its applications accessible? There was a lot of lip service but
> nothing to show for it. Vendors like ourselves were beginning to
> wonder if we should become dependent on MSAA if Microsoft was
> going to keep blundering. We certainly didn't want to make
> Window-Eyes dependent on a technology that apparently had no
> clear future. It was a difficult decision, but we opted
> ultimately to stick with MSAA and Microsoft.
>
> In February 1998, Microsoft put on an accessibility day for all
> of its employees. Representatives from a number of adaptive
> technology companies (including GW Micro) and several advocate
> representatives were flown to the company headquarters in
> Redmond, Washington. This allowed all Microsoft employees the
> opportunity to become aware of the existing technology available
> for persons with disabilities to use Microsoft programs.
>
> In some sense, the day was a large success. It allowed me to
> meet face to face with many of the project leaders for many of
> Microsoft's top applications. Being able to express the problems
> directly with them was very helpful. Interestingly enough, it
> became clear that Microsoft had not planned for adaptive
> technology vendors and consumer advocates to meet with each
> other. Only after the advocates demanded it was a meeting
> scheduled. Did Microsoft deliberately plan on keeping the two
> groups apart? Certain plans were introduced to the advocates
> which the vendors never heard. Why was Microsoft doing this? Why
> couldn't communication between all interested parties have been
> improved and made consistent?
>
> While attending the accessibility day, I was asked by several
> advocates what direction they should be taking with Microsoft.
> They wanted to know exactly what they should be advocating for
> to help us the most.
>
> One of the issues brought up was whether Microsoft should
> develop its own off-screen model. The question was asked, if
> Microsoft did create such a model, would GW Micro utilize it?
> Because of the existing investment we have in our own off-screen
> model, I don't believe we would. We have modeled Window-Eyes
> based on the abilities of our own off-screen model. It would
> involve a large undertaking to modify the entire interface to
> use the Microsoft off-screen model.
>
> One argument says, "Don't you think Microsoft could create the
> best off-screen model?" Based on the past performance, I don't
> believe Microsoft could do a better job then we have already
> done. We also have the problem of being dependent on Microsoft
> to make enhancements and fix bugs in a timely manner. Again,
> judging from its past performance, I don't believe this would be
> possible.
>
> Another argument supporting Microsoft's creation and
> implementation of its own off-screen model is that more
> companies would produce screen readers. Although this may be
> true, there is much more to a screen reader than the off-screen
> model. I think we would indeed see more screen readers hit the
> market, but their quality would not and could not compete with
> the screen readers of today.
>
> Another issue which is heating up is this: should Microsoft
> create its own large print and screen reader applications? At
> first, everyone might say "of course." But when you think about
> it, it may have a negative effect on blind people.
>
> Microsoft will be producing a very basic screen reader and large
> print application that will ship with its operating systems. It
> claims it is doing this so blind and visually impaired people
> can install operating systems, upgrade operating systems, and
> have access to the control panel. These utilities will be very
> basic in nature. They will have no features and would not be
> useable for more complicated applications. I believe this is
> great. However, there is much concern that Microsoft will
> continue to enhance these utilities over time.
>
> Again, at first, you as a blind person may be saying "what's the
> problem with that?" My response would be competition. If
> Microsoft continues to evolve these utilities and give them away
> with the operating system, the competition will die out. How can
> you compete with a free screen reader? Again, you may be saying
> "so what, I would rather use the free screen reader." That may
> be true but do you really want Microsoft to be the only game in
> town? It would ultimately dictate what the utilities should and
> should not do. Do you want to deal with Microsoft for technical
> support issues? This can go on and on. The bottom line:
> Microsoft should supply very basic utilities to guarantee that
> an individual can install, upgrade, and configure the operating
> system but should stop at that.
>
> I personally would rather see Microsoft take its resources and
> get the bugs out of MSAA. Enhance the interface to MSAA. Add
> MSAA to all (and I mean all) Microsoft applications. Market MSAA
> to other software manufacturers. The company can't possibly do
> this and create an off-screen model, full-featured screen
> enlarger, and full-featured screen reader. I believe the biggest
> bang for the buck is to let Microsoft work on the interface
> technology and let companies like GW Micro create the actual
> utilities.
>
> The accessibility group at Microsoft is always asking how it can
> do a better job. My first response is always better
> communication. I must admit that communication has gotten better
> over the years. But there are still times when we, the access
> vendors, are left totally in the dark. If Microsoft is truly
> interested in making its products accessible, companies like GW
> Micro must be deeply involved. Once the product is released, it
> is too late. Three perfect examples of this are IE 4.0, IE 4.01,
> and MSAA 1.1.
>
> So my experience with Microsoft has definitely had its ups and
> downs. There are times when it seems to care less about
> accessibility vendors and other times when it seems deeply
> committed. But GW Micro still supports Microsoft 100% when it
> comes to MSAA. We have proven this technology can and does work
> with our Window-Eyes 2.1 release. This release offers tremendous
> access to the Internet using IE 3.0x. It's the MSAA support in
> IE 3.0x which gives us this ability.
>
> We are working hand in hand with Microsoft in many other areas
> including IE 5. I believe IE 5 will work as good if not better
> than IE 3.0x. We are also working with Microsoft on IE 4.01. So
> things are looking brighter. It has been a very difficult
> journey and will continue to be difficult for awhile longer. But
> in the end, good things are coming.
>
> I also wanted to mention that I believe it is important that GW
> Micro continue to back MSAA. Other vendors have decided not to
> implement MSAA for some of the reasons I discussed. But in the
> end I believe this is a huge disservice to the community.
> Without backing from adaptive vendors, Microsoft has no chance
> of getting MSAA working and incorporated in major applications.
> In the short term, companies that don't support MSAA may look to
> be doing better but in the end, it will collapse. MSAA is the
> future.
>
> Before I finish, I should clarify one thing. I wholeheartedly
> believe the entire accessibility team at Microsoft is committed
> to making all products accessible. I have never seen one bit of
> evidence to support any other conclusion. I have seen many
> attacks on Microsoft and many are directed at the accessibility
> team when most attacks should be more appropriately aimed at
> Microsoft in general. I would suggest you use the accessibility
> team as a funnel to get your thoughts and options through to
> Microsoft, but they shouldn't necessarily be directed at the
> accessibility team. This team is our only hope. Let's try and
> work with them and not against them.
>
> ----------
>  Summary of Remarks by Ted Henter
>
> President Henter-Joyce, Inc.
>
> From the editor: Here is a summary of the remarks presented by
> Ted Henter at the 1998 meeting of the National Federation of the
> Blind in Computer Science. The summary was supplied to me by
> Henter-Joyce. Contrast this summary with the remarks of Greg
> Lowney (see previous article). As a point of information,
> readers should be aware that Dale McDaniel, who presented on
> behalf of Artic Technologies at the meeting, expressed agreement
> with what Ted Henter said.
>
> The following summary raises some interesting questions. What
> leverage do we really have over Microsoft to force greater
> accessibility to its software? How far should Microsoft go in
> terms of developing its own screen magnifier and talking
> programs for Windows? More to the point, how much will the
> proposed Magnifier (which already comes with Windows 98) and
> Narrator (which is slated to be delivered with Windows 2000)
> hurt the access market? These are important questions about
> which there is much speculation. Certainly, we as consumers do
> not want to see the screen reader market abolished. However, we
> also want Microsoft to deliver on the commitments it has made.
>
> Here, then, is a summary of Ted's remarks:
>
> Microsoft continues to develop and release products with little
> or no regard for compatibility with existing Access products,
> like screen readers and magnifiers. As recently as the Windows
> 98 release, no testing was done with JAWS, and probably the
> other access tools. They create problems that we have to fix.
>
> They (Microsoft) are developing the underlying pieces of
> software that allegedly will make access easier, even though
> these have already been developed by the current access
> developers. They have stated that the goal is to "level the
> playing field", i.e. reduce the success of the current leaders
> in the Access industry by helping others, and themselves, to
> develop the same solutions. Traditional access developers will
> not be able to continue their current high level of research and
> development, for economic reasons. Why develop it yourself when
> Microsoft provides it for free?
>
> When they develop the code, we will all be dependent on them,
> and they will control the access.
>
> Why would they want to do this? When Microsoft develops the
> access tools, then Microsoft controls the access, and then only
> Microsoft products will be accessible. Then only Microsoft
> products will be bought by the Government. Federal, State, and
> Local government procurements will be limited to Microsoft
> products only. The Government is the single biggest buyer of
> computer software, amounting to billions of dollars each year.
> This is the reason why Microsoft wants to get into and control
> the access business.
>
> Why is this bad for blind people? Only Microsoft products will
> be accessible. Say goodbye to WordPerfect, Netscape, Lotus,
> Quicken, Novel, Oracle, 3270 emulators, Eudora, Borland, etc.
> But just as bad, the level or quality of access will be governed
> by Microsoft, who will have no incentive to make it better. They
> need only convince the Government that it is acceptable. They
> will not be driven by the competitive forces that have made the
> current level of access as good as it is, in spite of the level
> of cooperation from Microsoft. Current Access Developers strive
> to beat the competition and make the consumer happy. Microsoft
> will be concerned about neither. They will have no competition,
> and the only consumer they want is the Government.
>
> Including a low quality magnifier and screen reader as part of
> the operating system will create confusion among purchasers.
> These products will get better and better as time goes on,
> further adding to the confusion, preventing the purchase and use
> of the right high quality tools even when such tools are needed
> by the user. Diminished sales will hinder the ability of the
> current access developers to develop the high quality solutions,
> and they will cease to exist. The overall level of access will
> go down, and our choices will disappear.
>
> What can we do about it? Convince the other mainstream
> developers that there is good reason to have access, like all
> the Government dollars. They do not have to rely on Microsoft to
> provide the solutions, which would definitely be unpalatable for
> some of Microsoft's competitors. They should work with the
> independent access developers to make their products accessible.
> Convince Microsoft that building Access products into their
> operating systems is not in the best interest of blind computer
> users and that they should not do it. Encourage them to work
> with independent developers to solve the problems we face every
> day instead of re-inventing the same solutions and techniques.
> They should work towards solving the problems, not monopolizing
> the market.
>
> ----------
> End of Document
>
>
> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> To join or leave the list, send a message to
> [log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
> "subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
>  VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
>
>


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html