You know, we’ve been here before. You might be too young—or too new to computers—to appreciate this fact, but we have indeed been here before. Remember the nightmare that was Windows? If you’re using assistive technology to read this, you’re probably wondering what on earth I’m talking about. Nightmare. How could I possibly call Windows a nightmare given what it enables users who are blind to accomplish? Thanks to Windows—and, of course, the assistive technology available to access it—individuals who are blind have the ability to independently and easily access, manage, create, and share information. So how could I call Windows a nightmare? Let me give you some more perspective then: Do you remember when the world switched from DOS to Windows? If you were a blind computer user at that time, I’m sure you find those days hard to forget. Here we were, happily using a text-based operating system when along comes a graphical replacement that required you to point and click on objects you couldn’t see with this thing called a “mouse.” “This can’t be good,” we all thought. And you know, for a while it most certainly was anything BUT good. Your office converted to something you couldn’t use, which meant that you either had to use the old technology (assuming it was compatible with your office’s new software tools) or you had to get another job, which is often more easily said than done if you have a disability. Those were some pretty bleak days indeed. But those days have come and gone. Though it took some time, effort, and advocacy to get to where we are today, makers of assistive technology products created the tools we need to access Windows and Windows-based software, and Microsoft took—and continues to take—the steps needed to ensure smooth interoperability between their products and the AT tools we use to access them. It’s still not a perfect world by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s a pretty nice one all things being equal. It is with this in mind that I approach the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ decision to migrate to software that supports OpenDocument Format.
Open What???
As its name suggests, OpenDocument Format, or ODF, is a format for storing documents/files. You deal with file formats each time you open or save a file. Many of those formats are proprietary, like Microsoft’s Word (.doc), Excel (.xls), and PowerPoint (.ppt) formats; or Duxbury’s print (.dxp) and braille (.dxb) file formats to name a few. Because proprietary formats are owned by a particular entity which may or may not be willing to share their specifications, compatibility issues can and do arise. If you use Word Perfect and I use Microsoft Word, will we be able to read each other’s documents? Currently, yes thanks to importers within each software package. Although some formatting may occasionally get lost in the translation, which is a drag. But what if the folks at Corel decided that they weren’t going to share the specifications of their proprietary format any more? Then, if you went out and got the latest, greatest version of Word Perfect and saved your files in its native format, I might not be able to read your documents—unless I went out and bought Word Perfect. Maybe someone would create an adequate converter; maybe you would have to save your file in an alternative format. It’s not an insurmountable problem by any means, but it can be a hassle.
The opposite of proprietary file formats is open file formats. The specifications for open file formats are by definition publicly available and can thus be implemented within any software application whose creators see fit to do so. For instance, HTML (hypertext markup language) is an open file format used primarily for storing files that will be viewed in a web browser or an email client; TXT and RTF are open file formats for storing text files; BRF is an open file format for storing formatted braille files.
The beauty of open file formats is that they can eliminate compatibility issues. Taking access issues out of the picture for a moment, open file formats mean that you can use whatever word processor, spreadsheet application, presentation software, web browser, etc., etc. that you want, and I can use whichever ones I want, and we’ll be able to exchange files just fine because they’re in the same format. So from the consumer’s point of view—again, access issues temporarily being placed on hold—open file formats are fabulous because they lead to more consumer choice by freeing the consumer from being tied down to a particular application. And the fact that the consumer is free to choose applications based on his/her own unique needs and preferences means that the competition between software manufacturers should heat up. If I’m using Product X to write my documents, and Product Y comes out which has far cooler features, I’ll switch to Product Y. If it’s time to upgrade to Product Y.2, but Product Z comes out that does everything Product Y.2 does for a lot less money, I’ll switch again to Product Z. If software manufacturers want to keep their customer base, they will have to constantly be producing the best bang for the buck. So not only will open file formats potentially lead to more products to choose from, they should also lead to better, cheaper products.
From an information management point of view, which is where the Commonwealth is coming from, being tied down to a proprietary format is a bad thing because it means you are dependent upon the longevity and whims of the company which owns the format you use. I don’t think we have to worry about Microsoft’s longevity; their whims, however, are an entirely different matter. If Microsoft were to one day proclaim some goofy licensing requirement for their proprietary format, or triple the cost of their software, or do something else entirely unexpected, would that mean that you would have to agree to their requirements in order to continue to access your information? It might…. Plus, Microsoft’s software isn’t cheap. In this day and age, with our deficit, hurricanes, the high cost of energy, the war in Iraq, etc., etc., federal and state funding ain’t what it used to be. Everyone is being asked to find ways to cut spending. The Commonwealth could potentially save money over the long run by using inexpensive or free alternatives to the products produced by Microsoft—a switch that is facilitated by adopting ODF as the state standard. So I don’t think that it is unreasonable for the Information Technology Division (ITD) to be proposing this move. The two major areas of concern are how ITD went about implementing the move and, of course, accessibility for users with disabilities especially those with visual impairments. The former I’m not going to get into. You can read up on those issues in other articles, including Andrew Updegrove’s “Massachusetts and OpenDocument: A Brave New World?” Suffice it to say, ITD didn’t go out of its way to solicit feedback from people who might be impacted by this decision. As for the latter…
Brave Open World?
Like I said, we’ve been here before. We are standing on the edge of another major change, one that in the long run will probably turn out quite nicely. But also one that could potentially mean some more bleak days between now and the time it will take to get to where we want, need, and have every right to be. I say “potentially” because a number of things seem very much up in the air. For instance, recently a statement was made by Peter Quinn, the head of ITD, that users who are blind could continue using Office while their colleagues switch to applications with ODF support. This is certainly a step in the right direction and is, in my opinion, reasonable assuming that it is a very temporary situation. Solutions need to be created—and done so in a timely manner—so that users who are blind can use the same products as everyone else. Why can’t these users just keep using Office indefinitely, you ask?
When a user who is blind needs support using a mainstream application, such as Microsoft Word, that individual can often get help from a colleague or someone from the IT department even though those folks likely know very little about the access product being used. The reason why this is possible is, of course, because all parties involved know how to use the mainstream application in question. The sighted user likely clicks on things and the blind user uses the keyboard, but if the sighted user can clearly explain what needs to be clicked on, the blind user can typically translate that into the necessary commands. If all of the Microsoft-Office-using employees of the Commonwealth switch over to an ODF-compliant office suite, their memory of how to accomplish such-and-such in MS Office will fade. And while I don’t want to stereotype anyone, I have visions of a blind user calling their IT department for support, being told that the Commonwealth doesn’t support Microsoft Office and asked rather tersely why they are using that product in the first place. At this point, in this imagined situation, the blind user would have to explain that they are one of those “special” users who didn’t make the switch because they are blind and the supported apps aren’t accessible, yadda, yadda, yadda. The IT personnel would then feel obligated to provide support, but let’s face it: It’s hard to provide support for an application that you never deal with. So is that user going to get the support he/she needs? Maybe. Maybe not….
And even if support isn’t an issue, there is still the matter of arranging file conversion between the blind user and everyone else. If there is a conversion tool, which undoubtedly there will be, someone will constantly be doing additional work so that information can be shared among all members of the office. That’s bad for productivity. If the conversion tool is not accessible, then the burden of conversion is placed upon sighted colleagues which again makes the blind employee “special,” put in the position of having to remind colleagues that they cannot access this or that file and requesting it be converted. And even if those colleagues need no reminders, they might view this extra work as an inconvenience: After all, if Fred could see, they wouldn’t have to be doing this conversion.
But let’s be optimistic and assume the tool is accessible so the burden of conversion lands on the blind user. That’s more work for him/her, of course, and on top of that is the possibility of compatibility issues. What if some formatting gets lost in the translation? I experienced this just the other day importing a Word document into OpenOffice to take advantage of its PDF exporting feature. Over all, OpenOffice did a marvelous job of importing my Word document, but it decided to put a border around my scanned signature. Because I happen to be sighted it was easy enough to spot and fix. But what if I were blind? Yes, I know, I wouldn’t be using OpenOffice because it’s currently not accessible. (grin) But hypothetically, what would I do? Well, I would have a choice: I could take the time to use speech and/or braille output to examine every last bit of the document on the off chance that an unwanted formatting change occurred, or I could hope for the best. Going the former route means that my productivity suffers; going the latter route and missing formatting changes means that my quality suffers. Decisions, decisions…. And, let us not forget, the user who is blind will only be able to look for those potential problems in the accessible applications. Any formatting that gets messed up in the conversion to—or back to—ODF will have to be fixed by a sighted user who can access an ODF-compliant application.
And what about the public? In this day and age, agencies and organizations are disseminating more and more information in electronic format and are accepting information from individuals in the same format. Is the Commonwealth going to expect members of the public who are blind to figure out how to access—and potentially create—ODF files as well? Yes, I know what you’re thinking: The alternative format suggested by ITD is PDF. I could write an equally lengthy article on that topic. The executive summary is this: Creators of PDF files need to take special steps to ensure their document is accessible AND even if they do that, the end users have to have a fairly recent copy of their access product in order to read it. Given the high cost of the access products, not all consumers can afford to upgrade. So providing accessible PDF files will indeed be a solution for some members of the public, but limiting the formats of disseminated information to ODF and PDF will create new barriers for others.
Of course, if a timely solution is found which provides access to applications with ODF support, all of the above is a non-issue. That’s why I don’t think this move on the part of ITD is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, in a twisted, Machiavellian sort of way, I think that what’s going on is turning out to be a good thing. I’m sure you think I’m crazy, but hear me out: ITD’s move is being watched by a lot of people in the world. And because ITD didn’t take the time to consult with people who know about assistive technology and access issues, we have the current controversy which is being watched by a lot of people in the world. In my experience, one of the biggest barriers to information access is that people just don’t get it. When I tell people what I do for a living, I get responses like:
- “Blind people can use computers?”—always said in an incredulous tone
- “How do they feel what’s on the screen?”
- And my personal, yet perplexing favorite: “So you know sign language?”
And these statements are coming out of the mouths of intelligent individuals. I suppose I can understand where they’re coming from: If you’ve never met a person who is blind, why would you know anything about accessing a computer non-visually? Why would you even think about it??? But now, because of the media coverage, a lot of people who didn’t get it are starting to get it. Folks now know that people who are blind can indeed use computers, and they are beginning to understand how. The nature of access barriers is finally getting the attention I think it deserves. Granted, it would have been nice if this attention came about some other way, but at least people are getting clued in, so that’s one benefit. Here’s another: If ITD had done the right thing and actively solicited input from individuals with disabilities, what would have happened? It’s hard to say, of course, but I think it would have dramatically slowed down any switch away from proprietary file formats while the access issues were slowly but surely addressed. Or maybe the decision to switch would have gone on the back burner indefinitely. Either way, in the short run, that would have been good from an access point of view. But look at the situation: ITD can’t take back their move if for no other reason than they have to save face. So there are a lot of folks desperately trying to find a solution for access. That’s a refreshing turn of events. With any luck, the pressure to address this need will speed up the timeline for access to alternative products. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a choice as to which office suite you use, just like everyone else does, rather than have your choice made for you by the manufacturers of assistive technology? I think so. So while I am unhappy at how we got to this point, maybe the ends will justify, or at least excuse, the means.
What is “Accessible” and Who Gets to Decide?
Over the years, especially when I was teaching and consulting in public schools, I have come across more than a few IT guys who just discovered some new application with a text-to-speech component that they were just dying to show me. “This will work great for Johnny!” they proudly announce. So I ask them for a demonstration. Sure enough the thing talks, and maybe some things can be done without the mouse, but not everything that the user needs to know is spoken, and some things need to be clicked on. That, I’m afraid, is not good enough. If, after being given appropriate training, Johnny cannot independently use the features of the application he needs and do so with reasonable efficiency, that application is not accessible to Johnny. Which brings me to my first real concern about this switch: How, and by whom, is “accessible” being defined? Sighted IT folks? Commonwealth bureaucrats? Based on my experience, if that is indeed the case, I’m feeling rather nervous. So here’s my advice, ITD:
1. Remember, just because it has a text-to-speech component and can be accessed via the keyboard doesn’t necessarily make it accessible. The test: Turn off your monitor, shove the mouse out of the way, and write a nicely-formatted résumé, keeping in mind that if it looks like crap you’re not getting the job. You should spell check it. Also verify your formatting: Is the text that you intended to be bold actually bold? Is the text that you intended to be centered actually centered? What’s the font size? If you used a table to arrange your information, is everything aligned and spaced as you intend it to be? Are the margins appropriate? Oh, and to make this test realistic, do it in a busy environment where you get interrupted a few times by phone calls, colleagues, and the occasional instant message. Maybe take a lunch break too and come back to the document later on. After all, I can write a nicely-formatted document without the monitor on and without a screen reader telling me what’s going on if I’m able to concentrate, simply because I’m quite familiar with my word processor—and I bet the people I’m asking to take this little test can too. Having performed this task, and without turning on the monitor, ask yourself how confident you would be sending this out to a prospective employer? Or better yet, your current employer: If it looks good you can keep your job; if not, you’re fired. If you can honestly say that you know exactly what that document looks like and that, yes, you’d bet your job on it, turn on the monitor. If you’d still be employed, I’d call the application accessible. If you wouldn’t make the bet, or if what you saw when you turned on the monitor is completely different from what you thought you would find, I’d say you have more work to do.
2. Keep in mind that there are really two levels of “accessibility”: There’s the one I just discussed, namely you can use all of the features of the application non-visually. If that level of accessibility were in place, I would say that the Commonwealth employees who are blind could make the switch. But looking long-term, the second level of accessibility deals with the efficiency with which the application can be used. What did it take for you to verify all of your formatting? I can just look at the screen and verify my formatting immediately. Granted, even with the best screen reader in the world, non-visual access takes longer than visual access, and I am not expecting that to change. I am, however, expecting utilities to be put into place to maximize the efficiency of the user. Let me give you some examples: Version 7.0 of the JAWS screen reader introduced a feature whereby a user can navigate within a Word document by jumping among headings, links, tables, lists, and other elements. Version 6 of JAWS introduced the ability to “skim read” for any regular expression. These things are not as good as being able to visually scan for elements, but they can make a big difference. In the long run, users who are blind should have this functionality. Switching away from Microsoft Office should not, after training has been provided, cause the user’s productivity or quality of work to suffer.
3. Actively involve members of the “blindness community.” Get a group of blind computer users of various skill levels as well as instructors/AT specialists and form a community of testers who work closely with you from the “get go.” Don’t wait until you think your product is well on its way to being ready to ask for our involvement because what might seem great to you might turn out to be an inadequate, if not unacceptable, solution. We want to work with you. Many of us are totally in favor of this switch given the proviso that it is accessible to all users. Let us help you.
4. This probably goes without saying given the brouhaha that resulted from your actions, but just in case: Revise your operating procedures so that state agencies which provide services to individuals with disabilities are included when a significant change in IT policy and practice is being considered. You have resources within the Commonwealth; use them.
Why Are We Even Having This Discussion?
If Microsoft would just bite the bullet and include support for ODF files, users who are blind could keep using the software tools with which they are familiar AND fulfill the requirements of the new policy. At times like this, Microsoft strikes me as a pouting child who has folded his arms, stomped his feet, and proclaimed that he will not include ODF support and if you don’t like it you can just go play with someone else. Hey, Microsoft, with that attitude you might not have anyone to play with before too long. Do you really believe that only the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would consider making such a radical move? Besides, the Microsoft Office suite is a very mature product. It has more features than competing office suites. And, perhaps most importantly, it’s familiar. The “typical” computer user knows enough to get by and accomplish what he/she needs to accomplish, but that’s about it. And the “typical” computer user fears change. Heck, some are afraid to try new things in familiar software because they’re sure they are going to “break something.” These folks are not going to be happy about the switch. But they don’t have a choice because what they currently use isn’t compatible with the new policy. Make your products compatible, and they will be more likely to protest: Why should they have to switch to some other software package when Office supports ODF? C’mon Microsoft, what do you say? If you truly believe in your product, compete on the basis of its quality and not on people’s dependency upon your format. It’s good for business, and it’s good for users who are blind—a population that, at least according to company press releases, Bill Gates and his Foundation care about. And if nothing else it would force the head of ITD to put his cards on the table. Is he really interested in migrating to an open format or is he just anti-Microsoft? (smile)
But let’s assume that Microsoft is going to maintain its current, anti-ODF position. Why can’t the manufacturers of the existing assistive technology products step up to the plate and provide access to OpenOffice or a similar product so that employees who are blind can continue to be productive? That would certainly solve the problem. While users would have to learn to use a new office suite, the operating system and screen reader would be familiar and thus the switch would not be particularly difficult. Why is this not taking place? Well, I cannot be certain as all I have is a rumor. So take the following for what it’s worth: At least one of the major screen reader manufacturers believes it will not be cost-effective to develop such access. So what would make it cost effective? While it is hard to accurately predict the future, I do believe that the direction Massachusetts is heading stands a good chance of becoming a trend. If you don’t step up to the plate to provide access, someone somewhere will. It might be one of your competitors; it might be that Linux—which has a number of access options already—is made to be fully accessible. Either way, you potentially stand to lose a significant chunk of your customer base. While I’m no accountant, taking a significant hit in sales cannot be all that cost-effective either…. But I suppose if you do not have the resources to commit to this development, you don’t have the resources. So what would it take to get the resources to make it cost-effective? Funding? If so, could the Commonwealth see fit to pay these companies to provide the necessary access? Other ideas? Instead of simply saying “no,” let’s look at creative ways to solve this problem.
So Where Do We Go From Here?
Good question. Too much seems to be up in the air: If the ITD and other interested parties find or create a means to access applications that support ODF, it’s a non-issue. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. If Microsoft changes its mind and decides to provide support for ODF, it’s a non-issue because the existing manufacturers of AT products will undoubtedly continue to support future versions of MS Office. I’m not holding my breath on this one; then again, I just can’t believe the folks at Microsoft will persist in their refusal when the trend towards open formats seems to be gaining momentum. If the existing manufacturers of AT products step up to the plate and provide access to software that supports ODF, it’s a non-issue. If none of the above happens, we may be in trouble. So the answer to “Where do we go from here?” is, I think, to continue advocating for a timely solution. I do not believe this is an insurmountable problem, nor do I think it is in our best interest to try to stop ITD from implementing their proposed switch. I think this is going to be the DOS-to-Windows thing all over again: Some nerve-racking days ahead followed by the ability to do more than we could before, just like we can do so much more in Windows than we could in DOS.
As long as an appropriate solution is provided in a timely manner, the switch should turn out fine and, with any luck, open format will open doors to more consumer choice.
—jd
).