Category: Geeks r Us
Okay, so I've finally broke down and decided to join
http://www.computing.net
They've got boards for just about everything, including DOS, and yes, that one is very active. So I'm trying to ask about software, but I'm willing to bet most of the users there are sighted. To make it easier for them and for me, what makes a DOS program accessible? I know that accessibility standards didn't exist then and all that, but if someone wanted to write such a program today, or if someone was trying to find out if a program has a good chance of working with a screen reader, what should it have in it and what should be avoided?? I know heavy graphics is definitely out. I've heard that there are two ways of writing a program, to the bios and to the screen, and I forget which is better. Also, some menu-driven programs work wonderfully while others don't. Would it help if a program is written in a particular language, and if so, which is the best? I doubt that has to do with anything but had to throw it in. Thanks.
Here's where you will run into trouble.
There is no one thing that ensures accessibility, rather it is a bunch of techniques and solutions that screen readers have developed with companies overtime, solutions that dos based screen readers that have not been updated have obviously not incorporated.
For web browsing, for instance, the screen reader parses the actual html to allow you to browse by edit field, button, link, frame and so on, there are solutionf ro Flash, however imperfect, and so on. I doubt a dos based screen reader can parse html for you and that web browsing is even very possible with a dos based browser, however I have no concrete evidence that it is not possible, may be dos based screen readers were farther along than I expect them to be.
Other techniques for accessibility include MSAA or UIA, two standards Microsoft has been trying to push for developers, both Windows based and UIA has replaced MSAA basically, however both standards came on the market long after Windows took over as the O.S. of choice over dos. For a Windows based app it's enough to use standard Windows controls or to expose information use either of the two interfaces I mentioned. Whether standard dos controls are based on standard Windows controls or vice versa is one question, whether a dos based screen reader was well enough developed to recognize such controls and know how to interpret them is another.
Language should not matter as long as they rely on standard Windows controls. Java has its own display mechanism, which is why you need the java Access Bridge installed or to develop with the SWT or servers widget tool kit which exposes the O.S.'s native controls.
I don't kow what you mean by writing code to bios, code is compiled into bit code and then run by the O.S. I do not think you can mess with the bios at all, and you certainly shouldn't. You need the O.S. to load before the screen reader based on it can run, this is why a screen reader cannot read anything in the bios prompts, at least on Windows and dos machines.
Alot of your answer was based on Windows, which doesn't really help here, but it would indeed be interesting to see if those standards began with DOS. Certainly, web browsing is possible with a screen reader. I know of at least two programs, Net-Tamer and Lynx, which are supposed to work very well for the blind user. The first is strictly a text-based browser while the second is a combined text-based and somewhat graphical browser, dialer and e-mail client with it's own packet drivers etc. There's also an older text-based one called Bobcat but I'm not sure if it's accessible. The fully graphical Arachne, of course, is out of the question. At any rate, the issue is how well will these handle modern webpages and I don't know yet. So finding a more up-to-date browser, if possible, would be great. But back to the main point, I have definitely heard of something relating to writing to the screen. Maybe, the other wasn't to the bios but it's another way of writing programs. One of these ways makes the programs faster. One is older and one is newer. Then, there are set files, which I forgot to mention. I know that in the case of VocalEyes, certain programs have specific set files that were written for them that make them more accessible. I think ASAP tries to handle the reading of the program automatically and I'm not sure what JAWS or ProVox do. I'm also unsure whether these VE set files can be written by users. If so, then it may dramatically help accessibility, provided, of course, that the user knows how to create them. Interestingly enough, WordPerfect 5.1 works fine with VE but WordPerfect Editor, which is based of regular 5.1 but which can save to text, seems to act oddly. VE can't read documents properly in it, though it can handle the hotkeys etc. I have to try the other readers for a comparason.
As a programmer myself I cannot help but chime in.
Now, programs that use the command line (or console if you prefer) can be used by the blind. Now, for a purely dos platform you would need to attach an external synth such as double talk. I'm sure you could still find this but you'd probably need to hunt for it as it is a back in the day toy. So, yes, it can be done.
loll I wasn't asking if DOS programs could be used by the blind. That much is very obvious and the synth is a given. I was asking what makes the programs themselves accessible. Why, for instance, do some text editors, web browsers, media players etc. work with a screen reader but others don't? I'm looking for a technical answer here, one that programmers or the really tech savvy could understand, so that when I ask for such programs, the likelyhood of accessible ones being recommended to me is higher. Btw, doubletalk is still sold at
http://www.rcsys.com
but they might sell only to businesses etc. When I clicked on the Doubletalk LT, I saw that one variant works with systems that could supply power to the unit so that a battery or wall adapter isn't necessary. I was unaware that serial ports had the capability to power units and thought only usb could do that.
I basically answered your question quite nicely I believe. Certain measures must be taken into account.
What kind of measures though? I'm not trying to be annoying. I really am curious.
If you are talking about dos it is easy to make it accessible. You have no graphical interface to worry about. You just need to make sure that you as the user activate the virtual cursor. Ether that or the program should start with the good old "press any key to continue" That way the screen could be read...otherwise you'd hear the path of the file spoken. "c:program.exe." That's on a windows platform but you get the idea.
Most of my programs are console based:
http://www.esnips.com/web/downloadables
Now, I hope that helps att least a bit.
It does help a bit, but the problem is that many modern DOS programs do use graphics. even with the ones that don't, it's not always a guarantee that they'll work. I've run into a few text editors, for example, that simply wouldn't work with VocalEyes. I haven't tried them with other readers, so it could be an issue with the reader but still. That's why I assumed, and still partly do, that it has to do with how the programs are written.
Yes, it does. An all dos text editor, urm, an all command line based one is quite a task. I've ran into issues with trying to make one of those. Also depends somewhat on the language to be honest.
It certainly doesn't have to be all command line to be accessible. I'd actually prefer ones with decent menus. WordPerfect and the Edit that comes with MS-DOS 5 and later are good examples of programs that work well with screen readers. at least, I think Edit does. Unfortunately, I don't have it in my system at the moment, due to the os being stripped down (not by me but by Humanware). anyway, I've seen several programs with menus that weren't graphical and inaccessible and they worked wonderfully. So which languages are best to work with when trying to create an accessible program?
Speaking of command-based editors, will Word Star or any of it's modern clones work? I've never tried them, cause they sound very complicated, but have heard that some people love their layout.
Not sure. Dos menues? Not familear with the old systems enough to grasp that one. lol.
Menues usually depend on a gui...and dos is nothing like that.
DOS, even in it's old forms, could support gui. Starting with MS-DOS 5.0, there has been a shell for the system. Also, menus definitely don't need to be written graphically. there are several programs, written for the blind, which don't use a gui but which have very nice menus. Jim Kitchen has some of them on his site. More can be found at
http://mail.nfbnet.org/download/blind.htm
So there must be something that makes these menus accessible and that prevents others from being read.