Completely Rethinking How Blind People Interact with Computers(self.Blind)
submitted 5.252702096193415y ago by redstone1337
I’ve had this idea in my head for over ten years now. I’m not an expert in the field of user interface design—I have no training whatsoever, but I can’t help but bemoan the fact that blind people must have this extra layer of software—the screen reader—in between them and the computer. If you think of human-computer interaction as a stack with the hardware on the bottom, and the human at the top, input goes from the human to the operating system, to the hardware, while output goes from the hardware to the OS to the human. Every OS ever is designed with sighted output, so blind people must cram a screen reader in between themselves and the OS. I’m sure this isn’t going to go away because we want to interact with our sighted peers and use the same types of software they do, but surely, I’m not the only one to get annoyed at the kludgy way in which we sometimes need to get things done. Reddit’s current design is a perfect example. There’s no straightforward way to navigate between comments or posts. We have to find the downvote button, then move once more down to get to the username, and then skip a bunch of stuff to read the actual post.
There’s also the fear of stuff just breaking. Every time there’s an update, there may be anything from an unlabeled button to a completely unreadable window. Imagine if a similar thing befell sighted users. What if Microsoft released a patch that completely broke video output to people using a certain type of graphics card, or maybe a software update that accidentally made the start button unclickable. That sort of thing wouldn’t go live, yet we got to deal with this stuff all the time.
So here’s my stupid idea: what if we tore that stack down to the very first elements that could possibly interact with the user, and redesigned them with the blind as first-class citizens, not a graphical user interface, maybe not even a command line interface, but an audio/braille/haptic user interface. Think of it as an old school notetaker on steroids. Even the old notetakers were built on top of mobile OS’s like Windows CE but were heavily modified so that they could be efficiently used by the blind.
How would this look in practice? I don’t know. Like I said, I’m not an expert, just a grumpy blind man, but maybe it’d be useful if we looked at how things work now. Almost every GUI on desktops and laptops is based on the desktop metaphor. Your desktop is supposed to be the surface of a table or desk, with open applications representing things like papers you’re working on or a calculator you use to balance the budget, or a waste basket to throw away junk. You can move your attention to any one of these “papers” and work on it as you please. We’re used to the idea that an application is confined to one or more discrete windows, but our hypothetical new UI doesn’t use a screen at all. There’s no “full-screen” or “minimized.” Instead, we could have all currently open apps on a stack, with the currently focused app in the foreground, and other open apps receding into the “background.” You could use a keyboard shortcut to switch the focus among them. So far this is sounding a lot like alt-tabbing between open apps on Windows, but what if there were modifier keys on the keyboard, which could dynamically interact with background apps without having to bring them to the foreground. If you’re familiar with those ultra-compact keyboards that use layers to access things like function and arrow keys, that’s sort of what I have in mind. If we had three modifiers, that would give us eight layers (including the one where no modifier keys are pressed.) When you start an app, it is assigned a modifier by the OS, and when in the background, you can press that modifier key along with other keys to interact with it. The prototypical example is probably pausing music coming from a media player in the background, but I’m sure there are other good examples. You could have a terminal emulator open in the foreground, with a web browser open below it. The terminal gets most of your attention, you could hold down a modifier key and press ‘h’ to cycle through the headings on the web browser, all without “leaving” the terminal.
So yeah, probably never gonna happen, but I though I’d throw it out there. Most of this is probably because I’m frustrated as I move from low vision to non visual ways of doing things, but maybe someone else can pick this up and make something of it.
fastfinge9 points5y ago
Mostly, what this sounds like, is expensive. The reason we all moved towards using screen readers on mainstream phones and computers, is because the devices made for the blind were always ten times the price, and at least ten (usually more) years behind in technology. Sure, the notetakers worked better. But they didn't get the same quality of updates a sighted product gets. They didn't use the same quality of technology the sighted product does. And they were always tens of thousands of dollars. Even if the UX isn't quite as good on my mainstream phone and mainstream PC, I'd rather have the increased functionality and decreased price.
redstone1337 [OP]3 points5y ago
Expense is certainly an issue, especially if the hardware is specialized, but what if the software were open source and developed by the community. Probably the most doable realization of my concept would be a modified Linux kernel with a completely new shell on top.
KillerLag3 points5y ago
It's called Vinux.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinux
Originally developed in 2008. The last distro was Jan 2017.
This is the distro page if you want to give it a try.
fastfinge1 points5y ago
I can think of maybe three people in our community with the expertese to do that. And thanks to the difficult state of employment in our community, they'd need to be paid, just to keep food on the table. You're talking about kernel hacking and hardware design. That's ten times more complicated than something like NVDA.
WhatWouldVaderDo8 points5y ago
You have an interesting idea, but I think you should consider the human-computer interface and psychological aspects a bit more. One of the key underlying concepts of our current user interface elements is the idea of action possibilities (also known as affordances in the field of user experience design). Action possibilities are the idea that we draw on the user’s experiences and perceptions of an object to allow the user to intuit the possible things that they can do with a particular metaphor. For example, when given a folder on the computer, most users will immediately assume that they can open it, close it, put things inside of it, remove things from it, and trash it. These action potentials arise from the user’s past experiences of physical folders, and are transferred to a digital metaphor with pretty much no cognitive load.
When creating interfaces with layered focus such as your example, the user is unable to develop a model of action possibilities without a nontrivial cognitive load because they are unable to draw on natural behaviors to develop the metaphor. This is because of the fact that layered interfaces do not commonly occur in the real world in isolation; there’s almost always a physical or temporal difference when there are two items. For example, if you are physically performing two tasks, there’s a spatial difference between them, even if it is small. Think of a piano player using both their left and right hands simultaneously; they are never in exactly the same place at the same time, so the brain can coordinate, even if it is muscle memory. When the brain loses the spatial information, it can get confused when trying to determine where a particular stimuli originates from. Even when you’re observing something spatially co-located, to differentiate the two phenomena without significant concentration, they must be separated in something like frequency. For example, many optical illusions arise from the brain failing to interpret color because it has either been intentionally left out or is given in an ambiguous context. The same thing can happen with audio; one of the most important aspects of audio mastering a song is to give each instrument certain areas of frequencies to play in, or differentiate them in some other way if their frequencies overlap significantly (panning is a good way to accomplish this). Without that differentiation, the brain just perceives noise, and cannot easily identify details.
Anyway, sorry for the information dump; I’ve done a bunch of academic research in this area and find it fascinating. Hopefully that made sense, and sparks some creativity. If you’re interested in the area of design, one of the best and most accessible books, cognitively speaking, is "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald Norman. It’s a great read, and will really get you thinking about how users will perceive how they can interact with your system.
cae_jones1 points5y ago
I am now imagining a spoken interface that positions messages in stereo based on the position of the application or control being affected. Probably not worth pursuing, but I found it interesting enough to share.
vwlsmssng1 points5y ago
> "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald Norman
I can also recommend "Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things" by Donald Norman.
This book extends the first book from the mere mechanics of good UI design.
ColonelKepler5 points5y ago
So apologies for being "that guy", but this honestly sounds impractical in the extreme. First, if you're talking about literally designing an OS that's capable of running on anywhere near the variety of hardware Windows/Linux does, it's just not happening. Designing a desktop OS and making drivers available for even a small subset of the hardware where that's even possible (good hardware documentation) would be an absolutely massive undertaking, one which would inevitably fail as people moved on to other things unless there was a huge team behind it. The number of blind developers (in keeping with the theme, I'd say this should primarily be designed by blind people, since the products that are seem to be the most efficient) would be basically zero, not to mention the people who would write apps for this hypothetical platform would, again, probably be zero outside of a few blind devs.
Secondly, having these "layers" you refer to honestly sounds like it would be confusing as hell. I would most definitely not want to try and interact with something like a web browser and navigate a complex page and have that app not be in the foreground....it just seems like way more stuff to keep track of. Also, lots of apps have hotkeys that allow you to perform actions while they're in the background. Regarding the braille notetakers: it might just be me, but I find them inefficient (especially the braille keyboard) compared to a computer/phone with a screen reader. I've been totally blind from birth, and I still mentally use the GUI metaphors, because they just make sense. Aside from that, at the end of the day you're still going to be dealing with text, regardless of what you use. So, I don't think anything revolutionary would come of this. The reality of blindness is, unfortunately, that life is full of uncertainty and accessibility is an afterthought, in tech and otherwise. That's not going to change unless some UI comes along that actually takes vision out of the equation, while allowing the same level of efficiency (no, it won't be a voice interface) and goes mainstream. Just my thoughts.
derrekjthompson1 points5y ago
I use Apple products, accept at work, and I think their screen reader is pretty well built in to the Os, but I like this idea. I'm too dumb to help make it but I would definitely try it if somebody else builds a blind Os.
EndlessReverberation1 points5y ago
A few thoughts.
I agree that it is interesting that we as blind people use software that was originally created for sighted people. I think an OS created for blind people is an interesting thought experiment. However, for it to be more than a thought experiment, you would have to come up with real benefits that such an OS with have over what currently exist, and I have not really heard compelling benefits yet. Someone could make an OS that uses smell as it’s only interface, or an OS for Americans, or an OS for left-handed people, but what would be the benefits of these hypothetical operating systems? For me, this question has to be the start of any serious conversation about an OS made for blind people, and it’s hard for me to imagine that the benefits would outweigh the cons that many people have already pointed out.
I hear people talk about how blind people need some fundamental change in how we use technology, and it seems to me that such people often have just not made the effort to become truly versed in the current tools that we have. I myself thought screen readers were inefficient and difficult to use when I first lost my sight. However, I made the effort to master screen readers, and I am a much more advanced computer user then I ever was as a sighted person.
If you feel as though there is a major inefficiency in your current experience with technology as a blind person, this would be my advice: learn more about the assistive tools you are using to see if there is a method or concept that you have overlooked. Learn more about the apps you are using to see if there is a better work flow you can use. Research alternative assistive tools and apps to see if there is a better option out there for your needs; it never hurts to have extra tools in the tool box. Research other operating systems in order to make sure they don’t have better features, tools, or apps for you. Look into creating a tool app or assistive technology if you need one that does not currently exist. If you have exhausted all of these options and nothing satisfies your need, then, perhaps, you could start to consider how a new OS would solve your problem, but even then, I think it would cause more problems than it would solve.
I do think it’s still an interesting thought experiment to imagine the hypothetical benefits an OS for blind people would have. I can’t come up with any at the moment, but I’m going to ponder the question, even if it’s just for fun.
redstone1337 [OP]1 points5y ago
As someone who works in IT, I can confidently say that computers are most definitely not 100% accessible yet. Sure getting around the OS is pretty much covered, as is browsing the web and using an office suite, but start digging beyond these most basic tools and you'll see there hasn't been much progress. Accessing a computer's BIOS is still pretty much impossible without sight, and there are mounds and mounds of applications that are off the beaten path for the mainstream but absolutely essential for particular industries.
Undercoverwd1 points5y ago
Interesting idea. I wonder what it would look like if we did the opposite and instead of layering the operating system, then browser, accessibility DOM, screenreader, GUI - we put the screenreader on top of the GUI and then did a better job of teaching the screenreader UI patterns with machine learning.
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large- scale community websites for the good of humanity. Without ads, without tracking, without greed.