Re: [orca-list] Accessibility of apps

[Eric Johansson <esj eggo org>]

On 2/22/2016 5:46 PM, kendell clark wrote:
> hi
> Obligate is rather strong. Do I think software developers are obligated
> to make their software accessible if at all possible? Well, to be
> honest, yes. But that's only because if it's inaccessible, I can't use
> it. No iffs, ands, or buts.

I offer a counter opinion I've come to through my own experiences with 
an acquired disability.

I would argue against creating the obligation to make software 
accessible. Quite frankly, most developers can't implement a good GUI 
even though we have almost 30 years industry experience with the 
interface. If developer screw up something that's well understood, do we 
really want them creating an interface in a mode they just don't understand?

The "because they will screw it up" argument is why I advocate for an 
api on top of which we can build accessibility interfaces.

From what I can tell, I think the current APIs are overly complicated 
and incomplete. For example, can you easily build a speech driven 
interface with the current toolkits? From what I can tell, the answer is no.

When building a speech interface, I need to know where is my focus so I 
can turn on or off direct dictation, contents of the text area so I can 
edit text using speech interface, what data elements (application 
settings)  can I read and write, what contexts are available so I can 
build a grammar for specific to those contexts?

So no, developers should not be obligated to make software accessible. 
However they should be obligated to build interfaces to the user 
interface and to fix the API when it fails a publicly held/managed 
regression test.