To: Internet:nfb-rd@nfbcal.org
Greetings:
Following is an exchange of correspondence (I do seem to be having
a lot of them lately) with Christopher Chaltain. Chris is an
employee of IBM, a former NFB scholarship winner, and a presenter
at the 1992 meeting of the National Federation of the Blind in
Computer Science. I think the correspondence pretty much speaks
for itself.
=================================================================
From: Christopher J Chaltain USIB4HB2 at IBMMAIL
To: USIDS002 at IBMMAIL
cc: THATCH at YKTVMV
Subject: Comments to your remarks at the technology conference
Dear Curtis,
In the Braille Monitor, I read your comments you made at the meeting of the
Joint Committee on Technology held at the National Center in 1993. I have
some critical comments on your presentation and other remarks you made at
the meeting.
First, you stated that IBM first demonstrated Screen Reader/2 at the 1992
national convention held in Charlotte, North Carolina. Actually, Jim
Thatcher demonstrated a prototype of Screen Reader/2 in 1990 at the national
convention held in Dallas. Furthermore, in 1991 in New Orleans, IBM was
demonstrating a version of Screen Reader/2 for version 1.3 of OS/2. This
version was also available on a limited basis to IBM customers. What was
unique about the demonstration in Charlotte was that it marked the general
availability of Screen Reader/2 which ran on OS/2 2.0 and provided support
for MS Windows applications.
Second, you implied that Microsoft's interest in making MS Windows accessible
began with the passage of the American's with Disabilities ACT (ADA).
Unfortunately, the structure of your presentation also had you referring to IBM
in the surrounding comments, which could lead the listeners to infer that
IBM's efforts were also a result of ADA. As you know this is not the case.
Besides the dates mentioned in my previous paragraph, I have been aware of
Jim's efforts to make OS/2 accessible to the blind since 1988, and I believe
he started earlier than that. This shows that IBM's interest in making OS/2
accessible predates the passage of ADA. The accessibility of OS/2 by the
blind is more a result of Jim Thatcher's drive and efforts than any other
single cause.
Third, when the subject of the American Printing House for the Blind (APH)
producing a tape to instruct the blind on using the graphical user interface
(GUI) came up, you recommended that the target system should be a Macintosh
with OutSpoken, since that is the only graphical user interface accessible
to the blind. I have never used a Macintosh running OutSpoken, but I cannot
imagine that it is more accessible than an OS/2 machine running Screen
Reader/2. I have been using OS/2 and Screen Reader/2 exclusively since the
first month of 1991. Not only has this allowed me to advance in my career,
but it has made me a more efficient and productive employee.
Finally, the overall tone of your remarks was negative and pessimistic
regarding the blind's use of the graphical user interface. I, on the other
hand, am optimistic and encouraged by the work done by IBM, Berkeley Systems,
and others. There is a reason that the graphical user interface is becoming
so popular among our sighted colleagues, and those very same reasons make it
an exciting opportunity for the blind computer user. As I stated above, I am
a more efficient and productive computer user because of my access to a GUI.
Furthermore, I have access to applications I never could have accessed under
DOS like the desktop publishing software, FrameMaker for Windows. Under DOS
this WYSIWYG application would have been totally graphical and unaccessible
to the blind user.
Obviously, the blind user faces some challenges with the graphical user
interface. It is not as intuitive for the blind user as it is supposed to be
for the sighted user. However, once the blind user has mastered the
additional complexity of a GUI and the associated access application, the
benefits of the Common User Access (CUA) standards and multi-tasking make it
well worth the effort.
I guess I was particularly distressed by your comments. I, like many blind
computer users, hold you in high regard and value your opinion. I was under
the impression from your comments at previous conventions that you were
impressed with the work of Jim Thatcher and IBM to make OS/2 and MS Windows
accessible to the blind. I was also under the impression that you had an
open mind to the benefits the GUI could have for a blind computer user. None
of this came out in your comments, at least not in my reading.
Would it be possible for me to get a copy of your remarks? I am sure they
are available somewhere on the Internet or on some bulletin board. I would
like to pass them around to a few people to see if my comments are shared by
any of the other blind GUI users.
Christopher
_____________________________________________________________________________
Christopher J Chaltain | internet: chaltain@austin.ibm.com
IBM RISC System/6000 Division | VM: CHALTAIN at AUSTIN
Internal ZIP: 9530 | IBM Mail Exchange: USIB4HB2 at IBMMAIL
11,400 Burnet Road | Division: 75 | Department: D54
Austin, Texas 78758 | Building: 905 | Office: 3B-021
Tel: (512) 838-8310 | Tie line: 678-8310 | Fax: (512) 838-8250
=================================================================
To: USIB4HB2--IBMMAIL Christopher J. Chaltain
From: Curtis Chong
IBMMAIL: USIDS002
INTERNET: USIDS002@IBMMAIL.COM; CompuServe: 73443,1351
Subject: My Remarks on the GUI
Dear Chris:
Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your thoughts
concerning my speech on the Problems and Challenges of the
Graphical User Interface (GUI). I am always glad to receive
constructive and thoughtful criticism about the articles and
speeches I write.
First, I would like to set the record straight concerning my view
of Screen Reader/2 in general and my high regard for Jim Thatcher
in particular.
In many informal conversations, in person, on the phone,
communicating over the Internet, on NFB-NET, or in the CompuServe
Disabilities Forum, I have expressed the belief that IBM deserves
a lot of credit for developing Screen Reader/2. As you so rightly
point out, IBM's work on this program pre-dates the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Screen Reader/2 is, today, the only screen
access solution for blind people who want or need to use the OS/2
operating system. If a corporation selects OS/2 as its "platform
of choice," blind people who are affected by this decision will be
able to keep their jobs because of Screen Reader/2. And yes, I
know that Screen Reader/2, together with OS/2, can provide access
to applications designed to run under Microsoft Windows.
As I learn more about Screen Reader/2 (having recently converted my
office computer to OS/2), I am impressed by the amount of planning,
forethought, and downright genius that has gone into the
development of this software. I thank God, quite literally, for
Jim Thatcher. Although he would probably not admit it, I believe
that he has been the inspiration, the driving force, and the
architect for the entire Screen Reader project. Jim Thatcher
possesses great personal warmth, public charm, tremendous
enthusiasm, and intuitive genius. I have made no secret of my high
personal regard for him. This is why, year after year, I have
invited him to speak at annual meetings of the National Federation
of the Blind in Computer Science. Each and every year, Jim has
never disappointed me. He always has something interesting and
thought provoking to say, and he is always upbeat about the
potential for blind people to use the GUI on the same terms as
their sighted peers.
Why then, in my speech, did I not devote more space to IBM and
Screen Reader/2? Why did I fail to mention the fact that in 1990,
and again in 1991, prototypes of Screen Reader/2 were demonstrated
at Federation conventions? Why did I not express more optimism
about the potential for blind people to use GUI applications?
I think to understand why my speech turned out as it did, you have
to be aware of the context in which it was presented and the
audience I was attempting to address. As you know, the Second
US/Canada Conference on Technology for the Blind brought together
people from four groups: leaders from the field of work with the
blind, leaders from organizations of the blind, leaders from
companies manufacturing or marketing specialized technology for the
blind, and representatives from the principal computer companies in
private industry having a major effect upon the ability of blind
people to use commercial software (i.e., IBM and Microsoft).
Because of the diverse nature of the group, it was difficult for me
to come up with points that would mean the same thing to everybody.
I wanted to shake up the rehabilitation professionals--to stop them
from wallowing in DOS-based solutions for their blind clients. I
wanted to send a message to private industry to the effect that
today, the GUI is still a problem for the blind, despite Screen
Reader/2. I wanted to make the point that access to the GUI is not
a matter to be considered once and then forgotten; it is something
that must be considered each and every time a new operating system
or application is developed.
I readily admit that at the time my speech was written, I knew next
to nothing about how to run a GUI platform. When I wrote my
speech, I was getting a constant stream of queries from blind
people around the country who were concerned that their jobs were
on the line because of conversions to a graphical platform or
application. The platform most frequently mentioned was Windows.
I had no current and specific information from knowledgeable,
articulate blind people (such as yourself) about the ability of
OS/2 and Screen Reader/2 to provide real access to such software as
Word for Windows or (in your case) Framemaker for Windows. I was
thinking in terms of the average blind computer user--the computer
user who could not get early releases of software from IBM, the
computer user who knew nothing about the differences between DOS
and an operating system using the GUI, and the computer user who
was told to convert to Windows but not to OS/2.
I do recall that in 1990 and 1991, prototypes of Screen Reader/2
were demonstrated at NFB and other conventions. I remember going
to a Wednesday afternoon demonstration of Screen Reader/2 at the
Charlotte convention in 1992. Because the 1990 and 1991
demonstrations were of prototypes, available only to a limited set
of individuals, I did not regard them as having much significance
in the over-all scheme of things. It was perhaps because of this
perception that I did not mention them in my speech. The 1992
demonstration was quite another matter, as you know. By then,
Screen Reader/2 was a viable product, soon to be generally
available. That, I felt, was worth mentioning in my speech. And
while we are on the subject, I did not actually say that the
Charlotte demonstration was the first time IBM had ever
demonstrated Screen Reader/2. My exact words were, "At the 1992
convention of the National Federation of the Blind, IBM
demonstrated its screen reading system for the graphical OS/2
Presentation Manager." Although this statement fails to make note
of the 1990-91 prototype demonstrations, it was never meant to
imply that IBM had done nothing in this area until 1992.
You say that the over-all tone of my remarks was negative and
pessimistic. I would prefer to think of the tone as realistic. As
you say, you have been using Screen Reader/2 and OS/2 Presentation
Manager since the beginning of 1991. You have doubtless had access
to Screen Reader developers, OS/2 support personnel, and perhaps
even some intensive training. With all of these resources to help
you, how could you not feel positive about the GUI and your ability
to develop and use applications built around it? On the other
hand, I and a growing number of blind people are only now beginning
to use GUI operating systems and applications. In my case,
although I am fortunate to have contact with some key IBM people
such as Jim Thatcher, I found that I was not getting enough help on
a day-to-day basis to understand the intricacies of this new
graphical operating system, OS/2. No one where I worked could tell
me how to manipulate objects on the OS/2 desktop without a mouse,
not to mention learning about Screen Reader/2. I was continually
frustrated by the fact that the documentation, even though it was
online, provided very little in-depth information about how
everything worked together. Installing a simple DOS application
(WordPerfect 5.1) would have been far more difficult if I had
followed the instructions in the OS/2 User's Guide. In the end, it
became necessary for me to arrange to receive a week's worth of
training from Frank DiPalermo, a Screen Reader/2 consultant.
Fortunately for me, my employer was more than willing to pay for
the training. How many other blind people do you suppose will find
themselves in exactly this situation? Quite a few, I would bet.
How many of them will be as fortunate as I was? I simply don't
know.
I think that it is also important to point out here that OS/2 is
not the only graphically-based system that has created concern
among blind computer users and professionals. More and more blind
people want to know when a commercial access product will be
available for X Windows applications. I have received complaints
from frustrated blind Macintosh users who tell me that Berkeley
Systems is diminishing its support for the outSPOKEN program. Do
these problems cause me to be negative and pessimistic? I prefer
to think of them as helping me to be "concerned." As you say,
blind people still face challenges accessing the graphical user
interface. Screen Reader/2 is one solution to the problem, but it
is by no means the only solution--nor should it be.
Screen Reader/2 and OS/2 are fine systems in their own right.
Together they provide access to a wide variety of GUI applications.
This is the message I have been communicating to blind people in a
variety of forums. I chose not to promote Screen Reader/2 quite so
heavily in my speech because I was attempting to communicate a
different message. If you feel that I was not as positive about
Screen Reader/2, OS/2, and IBM in my speech as you might have
liked, I can only say that I have had other opportunities to
demonstrate my support in ways that you may not know. For example,
just a few months ago, on behalf of the NFB in Computer Science, I
wrote a letter of support for the Screen Reader project when I
learned that it was being re-examined by IBM top management. I
circulated the letter quite widely and caused other blind people to
write letters of their own.
Under separate cover, I will be shipping you an electronic copy of
my speech as an ASCII text file. Feel free to circulate it around
to other blind GUI users or to anyone else you think would be
interested in reading it. When you solicit reactions to the
speech, I hope you will keep in mind what I have said here.
Cordially,
Curtis Chong, President
National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science
=================================================================
Cordially,
Curtis Chong
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 02 2012 - 01:30:03 PST