Skip navigation.

exploreopera

| Help

Sign up | Help

oedipus' online complexes

a compendium of truth which is stranger than fiction

Posts tagged with "usability"

trickle-down or bottom-up?

, , , ...

(or, i say banana, and you say orange...)
reflections on HTML5

just what you wanted, more navel gazing from a web wonk...

implementors cannot be the sole arbiters of what is and what isn't the best markup for a particular situation -- they are going to pick and choose what they believe their market share wants supported and will develop to that pre-conception, not to the actual technical recommendation -- otherwise, all of this would be moot -- if everyone implemented the same DOM in the same manner, as specified by W3C technical recommendations, then assistive technologies would be able to present a consistent user experience between user agents, but due to implementation decisions forced upon users by implementors, assistive technologies are forced to choose to which implementation of a technical recommendation to which to tailor their assistive technology, which undermines the whole point of standards harmonization, which is the basis of interoperability and a cornerstone of accessibility...

specification writing fora can define all the mechanisms one could want, but the reality is that implementors are going to pick and choose what they want to implement and the manner in which they implement what they have chosen to implement, all of which constrains the user experience, as assistive technologies then need to tailor their implementations not to a clearly specified technical recommendation, but to each individual implementor's interpretation and implementation of the technical recommendation, which, in turn, constrains what assistive technologies can and cannot support...

this is the tail wagging the dog -- a situation which reminds me of an oft-misattributed quote that "freedom of the press applies only to those who own one" -- HTML and other markup languages are developed for end users and not for implementors alone; to give the proprietary decisions of implementors more weight then the actual needs of individual users is a skewed approach to specification writing -- the point of a forum such as the W3C is to ensure that there is a standard, well-defined means of implementing features and mechanisms that allows for free expression of an implementor's imagination in the implementation details, but which must not override the end-user's ability to fully realize the potential specified by a technical recommendation...

the market hasn't spoken -- rather, it has only selectively listened to users' requests and needs... how can the market speak, when there are so very few voices that carry any weight? this is trickle-down development, rather than bottom up development, which provides a far more stable foundation upon which to build then the ever-shifting sands of the nebulous "market"

specification writing isn't -- nor should it be -- a popularity contest, but that is what it has been reduced to by the trickle-down approach to implementation and development; are the "big 4" really reacting to user requests and preferences, or are they merely providing users with an artificially limited set of options?

implementors are constantly asking for users to justify their concerns and use cases -- where is the "proof" that what crude tools we have at our disposal are the products of user-driven demand, rather than the product of convenience and perceived market-advantage on the part of implementors?

there are three layers of users being addressed by HTML5: developers, implementors/authors and end-users, and end-user concerns must be accorded the bang important in this cascade -- not the artificial marketplace created by individual developers which limits the choices available to implementors/authors, and hence compromises the user's ability to utilize the native mechanisms of a markup language, due to the restraints imposed upon the user by developers and implementors...

RFB&Doh!

, , , ...

Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic (RFB&D) has announced, that - effective 1 july 2007 - it will cease distribution of recorded material on audio cassettes, and will, thereafter, distribute materials in Digital Talking Book (DTB) format only.

Now, this sounds like a step forward for those of us dependent upon audiobooks to avoid illiteracy, and the granularity of the DTB format is undeniably superior to the gross navigational cues available via audio cassette when one is in fast forward or rewind mode, but...

you knew there'd be a but, didn't you?

here's the problem: in order to play Digital Talking Books, one needs a Digital Talking Book player. the same was true of the older, audio cassette format; for copyright protection reasons, RFB&D audio cassettes played at a different speed than normal audio cassettes, and used the stereo tracks on an audio cassette to deliver 4 seperate streams, so as to fit the maximum number of information on each cassette. gross section marking (sometimes by page, more often by chapter) was accomplished through the use of "a beep, audible when your player is in Rewind or FastForward mode". Most of RFB&D's client base already had a specially adapted audio cassette player, sent to them when they were enrolled in the National Library Service for the Blind & Physically Handicapped (NLS). NLS doesn't plan on "going digital" until 2009, as they are currently testing the default digital talking book player which will be distributed to NLS patrons, to ensure its usability (not just for "the blind" but also for those with limited mobility, limited coordination, and/or neuropathy), portability, and structural integrity (that is, ensuring that if it is dropped, it will still function).

most individuals use their NLS distributed cassette players (which feel - and, i've been told - look like they were manufactured by PlaySkool) in order to listen to both NLS-distributed materials and RFB&D-distributed material, the point being that - by virtue of having been enrolled in NLS - most blind individuals receive an adapted cassette player from NLS before becoming a member of RFB&D, so when one did receive cassettes from RFB&D, one had a specially adapted player at hand upon which to listen to an RFB&D audio recording.

there are digital talking book players on the market, but the market at which they are targeted constitutes a fraction of one percent of the USA's population, seventy to seventy-five percent of whom are unemployed. one such portable DTB player is the incredible BookPort, manufactured by American Printing House for the Blind (APH), whose price tag is $395. doesn't sound like much, until one remembers that 70 to 75 percent of those for whom the BookPort would be a godsend, rely on government assistance just to keep a roof over their heads, and hope that there'll be enough left for food, medication, etc.

putting the onus on RFB&D users to "Go Digital" at their own expense, sounds like an undue burden, doesn't it?

and, to add insult to injustice, in order to use RFB&D distributed materials, one needs to pay a user fee of nearly almost $10 (US) for a decryption key, so that one can access RFB&D's digital talking books.

thankfully, there are computer-based solutions, namely software Digital Talking Book players, some of which are actually freeware or shareware, the software solution, however, defeats one of the purposes of digitalization: namely, portability and ease of use.

and what of RFB&D's back-catalog of recordings? one of the unique aspects of RFB&D is (or, at least, is supposed to be) that they record materials upon request, no matter how obscure the subject matter, and when that recording is made, the entire text of the work being read - including page information, appendecies, the bibliography and the source notes - is included, in order to make attrubutions, citations, and page references possible; RFB&D is intended to assist the blind and dyslexic in their studies, work, and any and every other aspect of life. it provides books in toto, unlike NLS, whose focus is more narrative, and - like commercial audiobooks - do not include footnotes, endnotes, nor bilbiography. thus, it hit me like a thunderbolt from the sky, when my screen reader, in the course of reading RFB&D's Go Digital FAQ, i heard the following:

4. Is RFB&D planning to convert its entire library to digital?

No. RFB&D's team of librarians has done extensive research and taken steps to ensure that all of our most-requested, highest circulating titles are already recorded digitally. Also, member requests over the past few years have complemented our market research efforts to help us build an extensive library of books that we have already converted analog to digital. In addition, RFB&D is investigating retaining a portion of our analog library for distribution upon request in a simplified digital format that would not have the same navigation enhancements as RFB&D's AudioPlus books. In some cases, the quality of some of the analog formats that are archived make conversion impossible.

having listened to more than a few DTBs converted from analog, i can assure you that - even titles recorded as analog audio books, as recently as 4 years ago - begin with a disclaimer to the effect that, since this was converted from an analog source, attempting direct access to a page by its number, may not result in bringing the reader to the requested page. oh, and lest i forget, there is also the disclaimer asking the listener to disregard any instructions about changing sides, tracks, or cassettes...

now that's gross, in every sense of the word...

it is as if a librarian, at the dawn of printing, decided that, not only would all new works be published by printing press solely, but that only a select portion of the library's vast and varied holdings of manuscripts would be converted into the new, ubiquitous printed format, whilst the rest of the manuscripts are abandoned as fodder for silverfish, the rats, and the library's ravenous fireplaces and furnaces...

no wonder the DTB format doesn't include a way to directly access prefaces and introductions, which - at least in english - are conventionally numbered using roman numerals...

May 2008
SMTWTFS
April 2008June 2008
123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031