[DECtalk] ESpeak/accessibility

[Don]

On 6/16/2021 1:11 PM, Blake Roberts via Dectalk wrote:
> Don: I understand and agree with your point about needing to consider people
> with a variety of disabilities when developing products, including software. A
> solution for one person with a particular disability may not be the answer for
> someone with a similar or different disability. Example: text-to-speech can
> help blind people or someone with dyslexia, but those two people may use it to
> different extents.

Or, consider my comment re: the use of braille as a panacea to address
the needs of the visually impaired; it only "works" for those who actually
KNOW braille or are likely to learn it!

The problem is that developers "write off" these populations as "small".
Without ever actually identifying them!

A neighbor is responsible for developing public school curriculum.
In a discussion with her, I casually mentioned something like
"one kid in every class is color blind".  She objected -- seriously!

"It's not that high!"

"1 in 15 men"

"No, that's wrong!"

She then went on-line and mentioned the discussion in her "people who
plan education curriculum" forum.  And was startled to discover I was right!

How the hell can you be responsible for picking text books, etc. if
you don't understand the folks who will be USING those text books?

I am continuously arguing with colleagues who want to use color to convey
information.  "No. you can use color to ENHANCE the information that
you are conveying through OTHER MEANS but can't rely on it, solely"

You have to show people something SIGNIFICANT that illustrates how your
ideas can be applied to a wide variety of problems if you want to make
a convincing argument.  Designing an "accessible alarm clock" is a
relatively trivial undertaking -- it has a very limited user interface!

So, as my "demonstration project", I am automating my home.  Lighting,
heating/cooling, multimedia, security, energy management, entertainment,
etc.  Lots of different things that the user will have to interact with
in order to "live"; you can't just ignore the house as you're living
inside it!

I have hundreds of tiny computers scattered around -- in the walls,
ceilings, etc.  Remember, its a HOME; you don't want it littered
with all sorts of little boxes lying around!

These all are wired to a custom network switch that resides in an
equipment closet.  They are all powered from the network cables that
they use to intercommunicate -- so, no wall warts scattered around
the house.  And, everything can be backed up in case of a power
outage.

Like any network switch, there are idiot lights adjacent to each cable.
In a normal switch, these would indicate that something was plugged in
at the far end of the cable (typically a PC) and blink for activity.
So, a SIGHTED user could glance at a switch and get a feel for how
things are operating -- an indicator that is off would draw attention
as it means that some host isn't up and running.

For my switch, I have to convey a lot more information.
Is the device at the far end powered up?
Is it supposed to be active (it may be powered up in preparation
   of being used but not yet in use)?
Is it active?
Is it in a faulted state (e.g., the device is powered on but has
   detected some error that is causing it to not be able to perform
   it's intended duties)?
Is it in the process of powering down -- it's functionality no longer
   needed (e.g., the irrigation system)?
Is it running diagnostics, possibly as a result of detecting something
   unexpected while previously operating?

Etc.

I use a multicolor LED for each cable to convey this information.
This addresses the needs of the sighted community aptly.  If you
don't want to bother going into the equipment closet, then you
can access its status on one of the display panels located
around the house (fixed and portable).

But, am aware of the different types of color-blindness that
users may experience so I don't SOLELY rely on color as the
sole mechanism for conveying this information.  I also
use intensity and blink to differentiate the different
indications.  So, folks who can't distinguish color can see
it as a monochrome display -- varying shades (and blinks)
of grey.

And, folks who are visually impaired can rely on its tactile
interface;  run your finger down the indicators to "feel"
for anything significant.  Or, ask it to report its status
audibly.

And, of course, unlike a regular network switch, I can TELL
you when something is wrong:  "Don, the security camera on the
northeast corner of the house, facing south, is not producing
video imagery as expected.  I can communicate with it -- so
we know it's not dead -- but it's camera function doesn't seem
to be working as expected..."

Or, "Don, I tried to open the garage door but I don't sense the
surge of electricity that normally accompanies the garage
door opener's motor activating.  And, the door sensor still
shows the door as closed."

Or, "Don, the wind direction indicator is changing.  But, I
don't see any data from the wind SPEED indicator!"

Or, "Don, I tried to tell the irrigation controller to water
the rose bushes -- because it's hot outside -- but I am
getting no reply from it"

> Regarding ESpeak: I myself choose not to use it because, as a list member told
> me by phone some years ago who shall be nameless: "It sounds like crap!"
> However, I recognize and respect that some people choose to use ESpeak because
> the synthesizer meets their speed needs and/or they got use to it etc.

Expectations vary.  As does usage.  I first heard the Votrax "board set"
(it was about the size of a lunchbox with color-coded boards in it)
in the late 70's.  Almost universally, everyone who heard it was
unable to understand it's crude speech -- at first.  But, it didn't take
long to *learn* how to understand it.  And, if you had no other alternatives,
it was great!

Unfortunately, it was also very tiring.  So, listening to it for prolonged
periods was difficult.

But, technology has improved and processors are much more capable, today.
Not only are there more ways of synthesizing voices but it is also
relatively easy to change voices on-the-fly.

An elderly user may find comfort in interacting with a device that
uses the voice of one of her children -- or, deceased spouse.  A
child may want something that sounds more lively.  Each can have
a customized interaction with the same *appliance*!

For example, you can interact with a product in one voice and have it
raise alarms/errors in another.  So, you have a cue as to what the
voice you are about to hear is likely to be telling you.  You can
intermix "sound icons" with spoken word so you aren't forced to
listen to sentences or phrases when a brief annunciator can convey
the same information -- "Someone is at the front door", "The Mail
has arrived", "your laundry is ready", etc.

For binaural displays, you can "position" the sound in some portion
of the user's field of hearing so it's position encodes information,
as well.  A "chime" in the upper left means "mail's in" while a
similar/identical chime in the upper right means "check the door"

All of this because computers are more capable and software development
considerably more sophisticated than in decades past.

> My point: I agree with Don about importance of considering the needs of as many
> people with disabilities as possible when designing something, hardware or
> software.