The following essay was part inspired by a 2018 Northern California Braille Challenge panel discussion, as well as my forensics speech topic on universal accessibility and braille. Opinions are my own - from a former Braille Challenge contestant in 2004 and 2007.
Introduction
Many cultures around the world (both physical and virtual) have means of describing, preserving, and passing on knowledge and artifacts to future generations. For cultures with writing systems, it is letters, books, and many other writings. For virtual cultures, it includes videos, blogs, memes and many other artifacts.
For blind people and in the broader culture of blindness, braille is one of the methods for writing, preserving, and passing on our knowledge to others and future generations. Developed by a Frenchman in 1800's, this system of dots and their meanings are now used by many blind people around the world, and this literacy tool powers many situations including education, entertainment, casual reading, programming, speech competitions, and even a competition designed to foster literacy among children and young people. The high moment for this tool came when, in 2016, Stevie Wonder used braille to advocate for universal accessibility at the Grammys.
In this post, I'll focus on a competition that aims to pass on knowledge of and utility of braille to students: National Braille Challenge. Having competed in this tournament more than a decade ago, and now being part of several communities where braille has become an integral part of my journey, I believe it is important to talk about what this activity is, its impact on me and other alumni, as well as some advice for current and future competitors, including a word to the 2018 finalists.
So what is braille Challenge?
Braille Challenge began about twenty years ago when Braille Institute of America (headquartered in Los Angeles, California) hosted a braille competition for local blind students. Many braille organizations noticed this event, and over the next few years, this California event was expanded to cover United States and Canada, with students from participating regional events working hard to qualify for a national competition held in Los Angeles in June.
The purpose of Braille Challenge is to educate people about braille, as well as showcase its usage and impact. Although the event is designed for students (from elementary school to high school), parents, teachers, and others are welcomed to attend and learn more about braille and technologies surrounding it such as specialized hardware and software at this event.
Based on age, competitors are divided into five categories (apprentice for grades 1 and 2; freshman for grades 3 and 4; sophomore for grades 5 and 6; junior varsity for grades 7 through 9; varsity for grades 10 through 12). Each competitor is tested on at least three scenarios where braille comes in handy:
* Spelling: tests ability to spell words in braille.
* Reading comprehension: tests ability to understand and answer questions on a passage written in braille.
* Proofreading: ability to spot mistakes in braille writing.
* Speed and accuracy (for older students): simulates text transcribing environment where students are asked to braille an audio passage within a set time period.
* Charts and graphs: designed to highlight braille as a tactile medium for information retrieval and analysis through tactile diagrams and graphs.
Each year, hundreds of blind students participate in preliminary events held in various places across North America. Of these, top ten students from each age category (used to be top twelve until recently) are invited to participate in National Braille Challenge held in June. The top scorers from each age category are then awarded various prizes. In the past, prizes included scholarships and various notetaking hardware, and in case of top varsity student, his or her name will be recorded in Braille Challenge Hall of Fame.
Personal history about Braille Challenge
My first contact with Braille Challenge was in 2003. I was a seventh grade student, and a foreigner in both English and English braille code. Having moved to United States two years prior, and having limited exposure to braille code used in my new country, I didn't know what to expect when my teacher suggested I try out Braille Challenge. Soon, I was sitting on my desk at school, busily brailling an audio passage, trying to comprehend braille passages and so on. Although I didn't make it to nationals that year, I believe this local event sparked my interest in trying out braille challenge in the future.
The following year was one of the most difficult times in my life. I witnessed a divorce firsthand as a 14-year-old boy, having to watch my mother and stepfather argue about raising me and legal status for my mom and I. With virtually nothing in our pockets, mother and I moved to Los Angeles in February 2004.
But one thing I'm glad I did just prior to moving to Los Angeles: sitting in another Braille Challenge preliminary. I forgot all about it until May 2004 when i received a braille letter that started with the words, "congratulations!". That June, I participated in what turned out to be the first of two Braille Challenge national finals.
Three years later, I was a high school junior, planning what I wanted to do after graduating high school. At my school, I gained reputation as a resident technical support person for users of BrailleNote (I was the first person in my school to receive a BrailleNote mPower). I also made my virtual debut a few months prior when I joined BrailleNote Users group (back then, it was ran by HumanWare), and as a 2007 Accessworld article (from American Foundation for the Blind) put it, "because of his answers, people thought he was a Humanware employee" because I would give technical responses (no, there are folks out there now who are smarter and more knowledgeable than I).
And yet again, Braille Challenge came into my life. It was early 2007, and I was once again sitting on my desk, busily transcribing an audio passage into braille, analyzing charts and graphs, and answering questions about a braille passage. Few weeks later, my name appeared amongst a group of twelve varsity students to advance to the national competition in June.
More than ten years later, I saw a video from this year's Northern California Braille Challenge preliminary where past contestants discussed their experience with this activity and answered questions from audiences. One of the panelists, a teacher named Caitlin who was varsity champion at 2008 Braille Challenge, subsequently shared a Facebook post from Braille Challenge announcing this year's national finalists. At that time, I just returned from two prestigious national forensics (speech and debate) competitions where I competed in two events that required me to use braille: impromptu speaking and communication analysis. Because my communication analysis topic was about analyzing Stevie Wonder's universal accessibility remark at the 2016 Grammys, and since I used my BrailleNote Apex as a notecard during impromptu speech preparations, I was drawn to Braille Challenge once again, this time as an alumni and a recognized member of the global blindness community.
So what happened to Joseph Lee after the 2007 Braille Challenge? I attended University of California, Riverside as a computer science major, then had a change of plan many years later, and now am a student at California State University, Los Angeles studying how humans send and receive messages and a member of its forensics squad. But I am better known as one of the contributors to a screen reader named NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA), creator of some of the most impactful NVDA add-ons and tutorials (no, not my description), and am one of the fifteen million Windows Insiders who shape Windows 10 and the ecosystem that surrounds it. I haven't forgotten about Braille Challenge, and in extension, braille: through Liblouis project, I laid the foundation to let blind students read braile math via Unified English Braille, and soon, people using certain models of BrailleNote (no, not BrailleNote Touch) will be able to fully utilize the device as a braille display under NVDA.
Braille Challenge: its function and impact
Braille Challenge is more than a competition that tests braille skills; it also fosters networking, and for many, a chance to witness the power of braille literacy among children. Several statistics show declining usage of braille among blind people, although I believe that is slowly reversing somewhat. But without proactive outreach and training, future generations may not know that they have a tool they can use to communicate with others: braille literacy, and Braille Challenge is one such proactive outreach opportunity.
Braille Challenge is also a venue to research impact of braille in lives of contestants, and in extension, those who interact with them. Several Braile Challenge alumni have gone onto careers that showcase braille literacy in various situations, including special education, accessibility advocacy, law, policy and others. Some are current college students who are using braille in their coursework, while others are graduate students who are using braille in research, teaching and other duties. At the same time, current students are being trained to serve as braille ambassadors wherever they go, and some students compete multiple times in their lifetime not only for fun, but also to learn the importance of braille.
But the most important aspect of Braille Challenge can be found not with the dots blind people use to communicate with each other; it is people themselves. Braille Challenge, especially at regionals and national competition, is a venue where blind children and young people can come together and share their stories and experiences. The launch of Braille Challenge Alumni Network in recent years is a testament to the power of networking among former contestants.
As for the impact of Braille Challenge in my life, it reenforced my belief in power of braille literacy, as well as meeting some of the rising stars in blindness community through this event. Braille literacy and its power is something I believe today's blind children need to know about, because it layd the foundation for social participation later through use of a tactile, expressive communication medium. I also met some of the briliant minds in the blindness community today through this event, including several special education teachers, an accessibility advocate, and others.
A word for 2018 National Braille Challenge finalists, their families and other participatns
First, congratulations to all national finalists.
For finalists and their families making their first National Braille Challenge debut: I remember my first National Braile Challenge debut in 2004 and felt feelings some of you are experiencing right now: anticipation, anxiety, shy, eagerness, and countless other feelings. Do not be afraid: you've done the hard work, and the fact that you are one of fifty contestants recognized nationwide for your braille skills is a testament to your hard work and dedication. Learn a lot, and enjoy the national event, because for some of you, it is a chance to get to know others like you across North America and beyond.
For returning finalists and their families: by now you should know what to expect later this month when you meet new friends and old pals at the national competition. One crucial thing to remember: no matter how many times you came to Los Angeles or results this year (including how many Braille Challenge Finalist stars you have), take pride in the fact that your names are recorded in the history of Braille Challenge, and in extension, the blindness community. One more thing: please set an example and become role models for new finalists and future contestants: talk to new people, get a conversation going, and build lasting friendships.
For varsity finalists who are high school juniors and seniors: although some of you may not realize now, your participation in this activity may have profound impact years later. Some alumni (including I) have learned more than braille literacy when we were contestants, and some of us chose a career that involves braille in various situations. And as some of the oldest contestants, please be role models for younger finalists.
A special note for varsity finalists who will become college freshmen in the fall: college opens up many opportunities, including chances at showcasing your braille literacy and skills. I have used (and continues to use) braille for my college coursework, and so does (and did) many alumni. No matter which field of study you'll go into, please don't forget lessons you've learned through Braille Challenge. And I encourage you to give back to the community, including joining the Braille Challenge Alumni Network and others.
Conclusion
As I look at two artifacts from my trophies collection - National Braille Challenge finalist stars from 2004 and 2007, I'm reminded of the impact this activity had in my life and countless others. Braille Challenge taught me and others that braille is not only a cultural artifact for blind people, it is also a tool that unites us and keeps our culture going. It is also a solemn reminder as to what we need to do in the future to keep the braille literacy going: outreach and networking.
Different cultures have different ways of describing, preserving, and passing on their cultures to the next generation. For blind people, braille is one such medium. Braille Challenge, although it started out as a local competition, is now a nationally recognized event that helps, and should help, keep the passion for braille literacy going.
A letter to fellow Braille Challenge alumni
Dear alumni friends,
Do you remember the moment when we got a letter saying that we are invited to participate in the Braille Challenge finals? For many of us, it is just a distant memory from years ago, and for others, it should bring back memories of walking through halls of Braille institute in Los Angeles between competition rounds. Still others might remember standing in front of the crowd as we received recognition, while we might be thinking about finalist stars we have in our possession.
But most importantly, what did we do and what have we learned from competing at Braille Challenge many years ago? Certainly we can now tell stories about charts we were asked to analyze, or perhaps memories of rooms filled with noise from braille writers as we transcribed a lot of textt. But, for some, I'm sure we learned the power of braille literacy firsthand, and hope that we kept this alive in subsequent years.
As I look at your profiles on Facebook and other places, and listening to stories from some alumni, I'm proud of the fact that we kept our passion for braille alive. Most importantly, I'm glad to see that we are using braille in some form or another in our lives as college students, teachers, advocates, programmers, and in various places and positions.
Let us not forget that our work is not done. As the 2018 National Braile Challenge final is right around the corner, I think it would be a good opportunity for us to think about what we got out of that activity and what we the alumni can do to encourage braille literacy. Although technology may help with accessibility and opportunities, what helps us in the long term is a tactile tool that helps people be independent and participate in society: braille literacy and skills.
One more thing: I encourage you to give back to the community. we are in a position where we can give back to the Braille Challenge community, and in extension, the blindness community. We can mentor blind students in use of braille, we can encourage blind adults to learn braille, and we can serve as advocates for accessibility and braille literacy. I think the best gift a Braille Challenge alumni can give is encourage blind children to try out Braille Challenge not only for a chance to network with others and have fun, but to teach them the actual purpose of this activity: braille as an important communication medium.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joseph Lee (Braille Challenge national finalist, 2004 and 2007)
//JL
Monday, June 11, 2018
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Open letter to the United States forensics community: seven minutes isn't enough to cover product accessibility, importance of narrative authority and listening to minority opinions
Dear forensics community in the United States,
This is Joseph Lee, a blind student studying communication studies at California State University, Los Angeles and a member of that school's forensics team. First, thank you for giving me many opportunities to present my stories and hear others' speeches at many tournaments, including 2018 AFA-NIET and 2018 NFA Nationals.
I would like to bring awareness of a topic discussed at an extemporaneous speaking round at 2018 NFA Nationals. Specifically, I would like to bring up several concerns regarding the question about product accessibility not only from the viewpoint of a student, but also from the position of someone who can speak about this topic: an internationally certified screen reader expert and one of the advocates for accessibility as part of Windows Insider Program from Microsoft.
At the 2018 NFA Nationals, during the semi-final round of extemporaneous speaking (a limited preparation event where students research about a topic for 30 minutes and present a seven minute speech), one of the questions asked was, "how can tech companies make their products accessible?". I later found out that two competitors spoke at length about this topic, with one competitor I talked to mentioning product design as one of the possible routes to make products accessible. During the course of our discussion, I asked the student to consider human factors as another possible route for answering this question, and I requested that we should start a dialogue with this student's team and the director of forensics regarding product accessibility. After reflecting on this topic, I decided to write this open letter in hopes that we can have a community-wide dialogue about not only this topic, but also one or two ethical concerns regarding extemp event.
The reasons for bringing accessibility question to your attention are twofold: seven minutes isn't enough to discuss a complex system that is accessibility, and this raises a serious question about who is a proper narrative authority to speak about this matter. Although I do understand that extemp speakers may not have thought about certain aspects of accessibility or might not have personal experience or know of someone who've gone through this, I believe that we should start a community-wide dialogue regarding these two issues in order to provide more truthful picture and to seriously think about the power of advocacy by those who do have actual experience and are considered more accurate narrative authorities.
First, I would like to address the notion that accessibility is a concept that can be examine in the span of seven minutes (or for that matter, researched in half an hour). I would like to first point out what accessibility actually is and what it involves, then address some misconceptions that could arise from this.
Accessibility is commonly defined as ways of making things accessible to a greater number of people. In the context of technology, it usually means providing alternative ways to let people from diverse backgrounds (disability, language, etc.) use technology more effectively. A more accurate way of defining accessibility, given the present circumstances, is a collection of systematic approaches, methodologies, attitudes, and practices employed to allow more people to reap benefits of technological advances.
One key concept to note from the above definition is "a collection of systematic approaches." Accessibility is composed of a set of interrelated components that are engineered to work together to achieve beneficial outcomes for many people. These components include attitudes and assumptions, product design and research, accessibility standards, laws, norms, users, developers, user experience, environment, human factors, and others. More specifically:
* Attitudes and assumptions: in order for accessibility to even be discussed, one must have a set of attitudes and assumptions that value the needs of those who cannot access technology due to many reasons (for example, visual impairment). Some of the helpful attitudes include willingness to listen to feedback, willingness to ask tough questions about user experience, willingness to collaborate and so on.
* Product research and design: with the attitudes and assumptions in place, one can then look at ways of making things accessible through products. But that's not the end of the story.
* Human factors: these include what users want to see from a product, looking at expectations, outcomes and so on. These factors determine what kind of assistive technology will be developed, including screen readers, refreshable braille displays, AI-powered products and so on.
* Accessibility standards: one cannot talk about accessibility without mentioning standards, procedures, and foundations somewhere. These include Section 508, WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines), accessibility recommendations from W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), human interface guidelines from companies such as Apple and Microsoft, as well as technologies and concepts such as WAI-ARIA (Web Accessibility Initiative - Accessible Rich Internet Applications), Microsoft Active Accessibility (MSAA) and others.
* Collaboration between users and developers: collaboration plays a big part in designing accessible solutions, with users providing feedback to developers who in turn let users test solutions early.
These components and others work together when producing accessibility solutions. Some of the example accessibility solutions include:
* NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA): an open-source screen reader that was developed by a community of volunteers coordinated by NV Access.
* Seeing AI: an app from Microsoft that describes text and images via artificial intelligence.
* Eye Control: A Windows 10 feature that allows people to interact with computers via eye gazes.
* VoiceOver: a touch-based screen reader for iOS devices that opened the door for touchscreen access for screen reader users.
All of these solutions have one thing in common: they showcase what happens when accessibility system components work together to achieve beneficial goals for users and society, including listen to feedback from actual users, taking user expectations into account and so on.
Unfortunately, due to the nature of extemporaneous speaking events, the concept of accessibility as a system (thus making systems theory applicable to this construct) cannot be explored in a span of seven minutes. It might be possible that competitors may have personal experience with this topic or know someone who is an active user of accessibility solutions, thus providing clearer picture on how tech companies can make their products more accessible. But limiting people's exposure to the concept of accessibility through an extemp prompt is, to me, unacceptable. Although discussing this topic in an extemp round could lay the foundation for a dialogue afterwards, forcing students to research a topic that is too vague (as shown through the above explanation) not only jeopardizes the truth, but opens the door for misrepresentation and furthering a well-known misconception about accessibility: a one-time solution when in fact accessibility is an ongoing process.
Second, not only forcing students to research a vague topic in the span of half an hour is unacceptable, it becomes a concern when it is presented by a student with no knowledge (or limited knowledge) about this topic. This is evident when competitors bring up facts and ideas that could lead to misrepresentation, especially when they are not really a narrative authority on this subject. After talking to one competitor who answered this question with one of the points being product design, it became clear to me that it would have been better if an actual accessibility advocate provided an insightful criticism as to why tech companies are not providing more useful accessibility products.
Part of the problem has to do with lack of awareness about accessibility in the forensics community, and in extension, the public. Long ago (as late as late 2000's), product accessibility was seen as an afterthought by developers, with the public paying little attention to accessibility in general. This is slowly changing: with products such as VoiceOver and Seeing AI, awareness of accessibility has increased.
However, that appears not to be the case with forensics community, or if there is awareness, it is rare. Although it was great to see impromptu accomodations being met (such as verbal time signals) at national tournaments (for which I want to thank you from bottom of my heart) and with my communication analysis paper having to do with an actual accessibility product, it remains the case that we have to see people struggle to answer a question about a concept they themselves might not be aware of. Perhaps talking about how tech companies can make their products more accessible may have been an easy question to answer, without hearing it from an actual user of assistive technology, the extemp presentation loses its potency.
The concept of extemp presentation potency and narrative authority also brings up a related issue: strategy. Because some students are taught to answer questions that seems easy (if pressed for time), they might choose a topic that is actually the hardest one for them unless they themselves can serve as effective narrative authority. For instance, a question about an issue that competitors are not aware of may actually serve to limit their analyses, which would cause students to either repeat themselves, copy someone's words without checking validity, or pick another topic while preparing for the one they chose initially. Just because accessibility of tech products might seem easy (because it appears to deal with technology), when we examine the context of the question at hand, it is actually talking about attitudes and practices, not algorithms and product launches. Hence narrative authority is important: not only it allows people to choose a topic that they ACTUALLY KNOW, but also opens the door for INSIGHTFUL ANALYSIS.
Some of you might question my ethos in this letter and why I keep mentioning narrative authority and accessibility as a system. To many, I'm seen as a blind competitor with a white cane and a special device on my shoulders. But my outside forensics credentials include:
* A leading international authority on NVDA screen reader through NVDA Expert certification, code contributions, translations work, and conference organization.
* One of the leading authorities on BrailleNote, a braille computer used by blind people around the world and the device I use as a notecard during impromptu rounds.
* A Windows Insider with expertise in accessibility and screen reader development collaboration.
* Being featured on numerous articles and podcasts, including Microsoft's Windows Insider podcast series.
Are there solutions? Of course - some are short-term, while others are long-term, some of which will require change in attitudes and more awareness. The first solution is to make sure students can be given a chance to present their stories and insightful analyses in extemp events through questions that actually reflect topics people can relate to. If a question that is too vague such as product accessibility is presented, and if it turns out all three question options deal with vague subject areas, then students have no choice but to choose the question that seems to be easiest to unpack, only to discover later that they don't know what's going on. Thus I would like to suggest that we go through more scrutiny when choosing extemp questions, especially at national tournaments such as AFA-NIET and NFA Nationals.
Second, we need to get a dialogue going regarding awareness of accessibility in forensics community. Accomodation letters for students that need accomodation is not the complete answer to the question on lack of (or rarity of) accessibility awareness. I'm hoping that the 2018 NFA Nationals extemp question on making tech products more accessible would spark a dialogue regarding this matter, because it is time for us to start addressing inherencies that would not give folks such as disabled students a chance to utilize their narrative authority and power, and in extension, give them a chance to listen to stories from other competitors.
Most importantly, we need to make sure that we get away from an attitude where extemp can (and sometimes should) exclude minority opinions. Talking about important issues in seven minutes is a good way to raise awareness about an issue (albeit briefly). However, this forces students to prioritize expectations versus narratives that should be heard, especially from proper narrative authorities. The question of product accessibility may allow awareness to take place, although perhaps through certain lenses. As it stands, we have lost a chance to become better informed advocates for people with disabilities such as myself. I'm hoping that this can change in the future.
Forensics is a great (and an interesting) venue where we can have a multi-way street conversations about issues that impact us, the community, and society at large. But I believe it is important for us to evaluate our attitudes, especially when dealing with an event that could have been used to offer deeper analysis, and I do not want to see extemporaneous speaking event lose its place through vague questions that only serve to present misguided or incomplete analyses. The question, "how can tech companies make their products accessible" from 2018 NFA Nationals semi-final round is an example of a question that could have become more informative if people did know what they are presenting to the world.
As we return to the question given today, "how can tech companies make their products more accessible", my thesis would have been that it ultimately comes down to attitudes and human factors, because: accessibility is a system; attitudes have power; and importance of keeping users, their expectations, and feedback in mind. I do understand that this may come across as a minority opinion to some, it is still a potent case because it comes from someone who actually knows what he is talking about, thereby can offer insightful analysis. I'm hoping that this extemp question and this open letter could serve as a foundation stone for a long overdue dialogue on awareness of accessibility in forensics.
To competitors who did answer this question at 2018 NFA Nationals, if I misrepresented your viewpoints, I'm really sorry.
To teammates of these competitors, please spread awareness of accessibility through this activity at your school.
To directors of forensics, please recruit more students with disabilities and give them a chance to share their stories with the wider community through coaching, careful research, and networking opportunities.
To extemp judges, please be considerate when contestants present minority opinions that you may not necessarily agree with, and please give people (especially minorities) a chance to advocate for themselves and others like them through half an hour of research and seven minutes of presentations.
To leaders of AFA, NFA, PKD, Phi Rho Pi and other organizations, please do something about issues (especially ethical issues) raised by students and coaches regarding extemp speaking event so we can make it better and inclusive for many competitors.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joseph Lee
Student and forensics competitor, California State University, Los Angeles
This is Joseph Lee, a blind student studying communication studies at California State University, Los Angeles and a member of that school's forensics team. First, thank you for giving me many opportunities to present my stories and hear others' speeches at many tournaments, including 2018 AFA-NIET and 2018 NFA Nationals.
I would like to bring awareness of a topic discussed at an extemporaneous speaking round at 2018 NFA Nationals. Specifically, I would like to bring up several concerns regarding the question about product accessibility not only from the viewpoint of a student, but also from the position of someone who can speak about this topic: an internationally certified screen reader expert and one of the advocates for accessibility as part of Windows Insider Program from Microsoft.
At the 2018 NFA Nationals, during the semi-final round of extemporaneous speaking (a limited preparation event where students research about a topic for 30 minutes and present a seven minute speech), one of the questions asked was, "how can tech companies make their products accessible?". I later found out that two competitors spoke at length about this topic, with one competitor I talked to mentioning product design as one of the possible routes to make products accessible. During the course of our discussion, I asked the student to consider human factors as another possible route for answering this question, and I requested that we should start a dialogue with this student's team and the director of forensics regarding product accessibility. After reflecting on this topic, I decided to write this open letter in hopes that we can have a community-wide dialogue about not only this topic, but also one or two ethical concerns regarding extemp event.
The reasons for bringing accessibility question to your attention are twofold: seven minutes isn't enough to discuss a complex system that is accessibility, and this raises a serious question about who is a proper narrative authority to speak about this matter. Although I do understand that extemp speakers may not have thought about certain aspects of accessibility or might not have personal experience or know of someone who've gone through this, I believe that we should start a community-wide dialogue regarding these two issues in order to provide more truthful picture and to seriously think about the power of advocacy by those who do have actual experience and are considered more accurate narrative authorities.
First, I would like to address the notion that accessibility is a concept that can be examine in the span of seven minutes (or for that matter, researched in half an hour). I would like to first point out what accessibility actually is and what it involves, then address some misconceptions that could arise from this.
Accessibility is commonly defined as ways of making things accessible to a greater number of people. In the context of technology, it usually means providing alternative ways to let people from diverse backgrounds (disability, language, etc.) use technology more effectively. A more accurate way of defining accessibility, given the present circumstances, is a collection of systematic approaches, methodologies, attitudes, and practices employed to allow more people to reap benefits of technological advances.
One key concept to note from the above definition is "a collection of systematic approaches." Accessibility is composed of a set of interrelated components that are engineered to work together to achieve beneficial outcomes for many people. These components include attitudes and assumptions, product design and research, accessibility standards, laws, norms, users, developers, user experience, environment, human factors, and others. More specifically:
* Attitudes and assumptions: in order for accessibility to even be discussed, one must have a set of attitudes and assumptions that value the needs of those who cannot access technology due to many reasons (for example, visual impairment). Some of the helpful attitudes include willingness to listen to feedback, willingness to ask tough questions about user experience, willingness to collaborate and so on.
* Product research and design: with the attitudes and assumptions in place, one can then look at ways of making things accessible through products. But that's not the end of the story.
* Human factors: these include what users want to see from a product, looking at expectations, outcomes and so on. These factors determine what kind of assistive technology will be developed, including screen readers, refreshable braille displays, AI-powered products and so on.
* Accessibility standards: one cannot talk about accessibility without mentioning standards, procedures, and foundations somewhere. These include Section 508, WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines), accessibility recommendations from W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), human interface guidelines from companies such as Apple and Microsoft, as well as technologies and concepts such as WAI-ARIA (Web Accessibility Initiative - Accessible Rich Internet Applications), Microsoft Active Accessibility (MSAA) and others.
* Collaboration between users and developers: collaboration plays a big part in designing accessible solutions, with users providing feedback to developers who in turn let users test solutions early.
These components and others work together when producing accessibility solutions. Some of the example accessibility solutions include:
* NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA): an open-source screen reader that was developed by a community of volunteers coordinated by NV Access.
* Seeing AI: an app from Microsoft that describes text and images via artificial intelligence.
* Eye Control: A Windows 10 feature that allows people to interact with computers via eye gazes.
* VoiceOver: a touch-based screen reader for iOS devices that opened the door for touchscreen access for screen reader users.
All of these solutions have one thing in common: they showcase what happens when accessibility system components work together to achieve beneficial goals for users and society, including listen to feedback from actual users, taking user expectations into account and so on.
Unfortunately, due to the nature of extemporaneous speaking events, the concept of accessibility as a system (thus making systems theory applicable to this construct) cannot be explored in a span of seven minutes. It might be possible that competitors may have personal experience with this topic or know someone who is an active user of accessibility solutions, thus providing clearer picture on how tech companies can make their products more accessible. But limiting people's exposure to the concept of accessibility through an extemp prompt is, to me, unacceptable. Although discussing this topic in an extemp round could lay the foundation for a dialogue afterwards, forcing students to research a topic that is too vague (as shown through the above explanation) not only jeopardizes the truth, but opens the door for misrepresentation and furthering a well-known misconception about accessibility: a one-time solution when in fact accessibility is an ongoing process.
Second, not only forcing students to research a vague topic in the span of half an hour is unacceptable, it becomes a concern when it is presented by a student with no knowledge (or limited knowledge) about this topic. This is evident when competitors bring up facts and ideas that could lead to misrepresentation, especially when they are not really a narrative authority on this subject. After talking to one competitor who answered this question with one of the points being product design, it became clear to me that it would have been better if an actual accessibility advocate provided an insightful criticism as to why tech companies are not providing more useful accessibility products.
Part of the problem has to do with lack of awareness about accessibility in the forensics community, and in extension, the public. Long ago (as late as late 2000's), product accessibility was seen as an afterthought by developers, with the public paying little attention to accessibility in general. This is slowly changing: with products such as VoiceOver and Seeing AI, awareness of accessibility has increased.
However, that appears not to be the case with forensics community, or if there is awareness, it is rare. Although it was great to see impromptu accomodations being met (such as verbal time signals) at national tournaments (for which I want to thank you from bottom of my heart) and with my communication analysis paper having to do with an actual accessibility product, it remains the case that we have to see people struggle to answer a question about a concept they themselves might not be aware of. Perhaps talking about how tech companies can make their products more accessible may have been an easy question to answer, without hearing it from an actual user of assistive technology, the extemp presentation loses its potency.
The concept of extemp presentation potency and narrative authority also brings up a related issue: strategy. Because some students are taught to answer questions that seems easy (if pressed for time), they might choose a topic that is actually the hardest one for them unless they themselves can serve as effective narrative authority. For instance, a question about an issue that competitors are not aware of may actually serve to limit their analyses, which would cause students to either repeat themselves, copy someone's words without checking validity, or pick another topic while preparing for the one they chose initially. Just because accessibility of tech products might seem easy (because it appears to deal with technology), when we examine the context of the question at hand, it is actually talking about attitudes and practices, not algorithms and product launches. Hence narrative authority is important: not only it allows people to choose a topic that they ACTUALLY KNOW, but also opens the door for INSIGHTFUL ANALYSIS.
Some of you might question my ethos in this letter and why I keep mentioning narrative authority and accessibility as a system. To many, I'm seen as a blind competitor with a white cane and a special device on my shoulders. But my outside forensics credentials include:
* A leading international authority on NVDA screen reader through NVDA Expert certification, code contributions, translations work, and conference organization.
* One of the leading authorities on BrailleNote, a braille computer used by blind people around the world and the device I use as a notecard during impromptu rounds.
* A Windows Insider with expertise in accessibility and screen reader development collaboration.
* Being featured on numerous articles and podcasts, including Microsoft's Windows Insider podcast series.
Are there solutions? Of course - some are short-term, while others are long-term, some of which will require change in attitudes and more awareness. The first solution is to make sure students can be given a chance to present their stories and insightful analyses in extemp events through questions that actually reflect topics people can relate to. If a question that is too vague such as product accessibility is presented, and if it turns out all three question options deal with vague subject areas, then students have no choice but to choose the question that seems to be easiest to unpack, only to discover later that they don't know what's going on. Thus I would like to suggest that we go through more scrutiny when choosing extemp questions, especially at national tournaments such as AFA-NIET and NFA Nationals.
Second, we need to get a dialogue going regarding awareness of accessibility in forensics community. Accomodation letters for students that need accomodation is not the complete answer to the question on lack of (or rarity of) accessibility awareness. I'm hoping that the 2018 NFA Nationals extemp question on making tech products more accessible would spark a dialogue regarding this matter, because it is time for us to start addressing inherencies that would not give folks such as disabled students a chance to utilize their narrative authority and power, and in extension, give them a chance to listen to stories from other competitors.
Most importantly, we need to make sure that we get away from an attitude where extemp can (and sometimes should) exclude minority opinions. Talking about important issues in seven minutes is a good way to raise awareness about an issue (albeit briefly). However, this forces students to prioritize expectations versus narratives that should be heard, especially from proper narrative authorities. The question of product accessibility may allow awareness to take place, although perhaps through certain lenses. As it stands, we have lost a chance to become better informed advocates for people with disabilities such as myself. I'm hoping that this can change in the future.
Forensics is a great (and an interesting) venue where we can have a multi-way street conversations about issues that impact us, the community, and society at large. But I believe it is important for us to evaluate our attitudes, especially when dealing with an event that could have been used to offer deeper analysis, and I do not want to see extemporaneous speaking event lose its place through vague questions that only serve to present misguided or incomplete analyses. The question, "how can tech companies make their products accessible" from 2018 NFA Nationals semi-final round is an example of a question that could have become more informative if people did know what they are presenting to the world.
As we return to the question given today, "how can tech companies make their products more accessible", my thesis would have been that it ultimately comes down to attitudes and human factors, because: accessibility is a system; attitudes have power; and importance of keeping users, their expectations, and feedback in mind. I do understand that this may come across as a minority opinion to some, it is still a potent case because it comes from someone who actually knows what he is talking about, thereby can offer insightful analysis. I'm hoping that this extemp question and this open letter could serve as a foundation stone for a long overdue dialogue on awareness of accessibility in forensics.
To competitors who did answer this question at 2018 NFA Nationals, if I misrepresented your viewpoints, I'm really sorry.
To teammates of these competitors, please spread awareness of accessibility through this activity at your school.
To directors of forensics, please recruit more students with disabilities and give them a chance to share their stories with the wider community through coaching, careful research, and networking opportunities.
To extemp judges, please be considerate when contestants present minority opinions that you may not necessarily agree with, and please give people (especially minorities) a chance to advocate for themselves and others like them through half an hour of research and seven minutes of presentations.
To leaders of AFA, NFA, PKD, Phi Rho Pi and other organizations, please do something about issues (especially ethical issues) raised by students and coaches regarding extemp speaking event so we can make it better and inclusive for many competitors.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joseph Lee
Student and forensics competitor, California State University, Los Angeles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)