
My Journey From Blindness to Building a Fully Conversational User Interface - evanh2002
https://medium.com/@CMaury/war-stories-my-journey-from-blindness-to-building-a-fully-conversational-user-interface-5ffb74a74c6d#.2i29t9d3n
======
BEEdwards
I got so excited when I read this headline because I thought there was a
product I could get for the 80 year old blind lady I work with that would
allow her to read her email by talking to her computer, but alas it's just for
shopping.

Computers are presently absolutely terrible for the visually impaired and
there is no product I can find that even begins to address it.

As the article said screen readers right now are ass backwards, it might read
to you, but you still need to be able to see move the mouse and do anything
with it.

~~~
melling
Yeah, but you have to build a business that makes money first. It's still a
step forward. Every time someone solves a problem with voice, it becomes
easier for the next person.

Some in the hacker community are working on voice solutions to help program
with off the shelf programs, for example:

[https://github.com/melling/ErgonomicNotes/blob/master/progra...](https://github.com/melling/ErgonomicNotes/blob/master/programming_by_voice.org)

Someone could probably use the same solution to help the visually impaired.

Throw in the new motion gesture technology, like that by Intel:
[http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-
tech...](http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-
technology/realsense-overview.html)

And soon we'll all have more natural ways to interact with computers.

~~~
zokier
I have no real knowledge, but I imagine that gesture interfaces would be
massively worse than keyboard for visually impaired because the lack of
tactile feedback.

~~~
stevetrewick
Not necessarily. Successfully thinking about this stuff requires stripping
interactions all the way back to their intent. The intent of either a key
press or gesture is to change some state and the intent of the feedback is to
communicate both the change and the new state.

The tactile feedback from a key press is at best only a small proportion of
that. You get to know you mushed a key, but not what (if anything) it changed.
Assistive tech using keyboard input will generally fill in that gap with voice
feedback. Gesture input with haptic and audio/voice feedback should be usable
in some scenarios. I'm currently working on a couple of iOS apps in the
fitness space that have this as a key part of their UI.

------
stevetrewick
Always great to see innovation in this space, will be really great to see how
this approach pans out.

I've mixed feelings about conversational UI personally but one of the things
that makes accessibility so hard is that there really is no 'one size fits
all' solution.

As the author signposts, people who lose their sight later in life tend to
struggle a great deal more than those of us lucky enough never to have known
anything different - we had the advantage of naturally developing all the
appropriate strategies and skills while our brains were still plastic.

That group would doubtless benefit from an assistive tech stack that 'just
works' and doesn't require a bunch of training and knowledge acquisition to
get even the simplest things done.

------
swampthinker
Wow, just reading your story makes me frustrated. I can't imaging trying to
program without being able to see my screen.

How do you anticipate programming as you become legally blind? Will you start
dictating code and having it read back to you?

~~~
cmaury
There are a lot of professional developers who are blind. They use accessible
IDEs paired with a Screen reader. Here is a good description:
[http://stackoverflow.com/a/453758/319013](http://stackoverflow.com/a/453758/319013)

In the future, I think there is a lot of potential for pairing a
Conversational UI and a natural language programming...language. Eve looks
really promising, and could change the way that everyone writes software, and
not just the blind: [http://eve-lang.com/](http://eve-lang.com/)

Here is a demo:
[https://youtu.be/VZQoAKJPbh8?t=46m52s](https://youtu.be/VZQoAKJPbh8?t=46m52s)

------
brbsix
Anyone else experience a psychosomatic reaction from this story? My eyes
started to ache just reading it. What a terrifying prospect.

------
zokier
Okay, this is really more nitpicking than anything else, but this passage
struck me as odd:

> When it came to the people I met, many who have been blind since they were
> very young and who have worse vision than I will ever have, I was blown
> away. _The term disabled does not apply to them._ They are extremely
> independent, good natured, and very successful in whatever field they chose
> to be in.

Instead of saying that the term disabled does not apply to successful etc
people, I think better phrasing would be that meeting these people changed
what he considered disabled to mean/imply.

Other than that, I like the overall message. I do think that it's good idea to
focus on making purpose-built applications for vision (or otherwise) impaired
people, maybe even trying to grow a small niche ecosystem.

~~~
ndarilek
Agreed, thanks for saying this. I'm always a bit weirded out when someone
tries to tell me I'm not disabled because I'm successful, so of course I'm
able. I get that, probably from a pure linguistic perspective, the word
"disabled" has negative connotations. In actuality though, there's a rich
disability community. Chicago (I think, anyway) has an annual disability pride
parade. We live in a culture that tries to strip lots away from us when we're
disabled, and sometimes it's all we can do to claw some of that back. So while
someone may mean well by claiming that someone who is successful or competent
shouldn't be called disabled, it takes away that person's autonomy and ability
to self-identify, and also removes success and competence from what people
think of when they think "disabled." IOW, if someone can say that the word
"disabled" doesn't apply to a person because they do something well, others in
the set of disabled people have it a bit worse off because they're both faced
with a challenge and not able to handle it well.

That said, I didn't think this was the author's intent. But I can't count how
many times someone didn't think I was blind because I wrote well, and they
couldn't conceive of how someone who couldn't see could write a coherent
sentence. :) Try applying for jobs in that expectational landscape and, well,
it's challenging and is why I don't even like working for others anymore.

~~~
cmaury
This really wasn't my intent. I sincerely apologize for communicating
otherwise.

I identify as blind or low-viz and wouldn't want to take away from others who
also identify as such or as disabled.

That line was meant to be a response to the fears that it seemed like my
family and friends had about my diagnosis. Fears, that I wouldn't be able to
remain independent or be successful. You know how loved ones generally fear
the worst possible scenario. Anyway, wording it this was was terrible, and I'm
sorry. I'll see if I can make an edit and rephrase things.

~~~
ndarilek
Thanks, I know it wasn't. Likewise, my intent wasn't to make you feel bad. I
imagine this landscape is all very new to you, and recognize that it's
probably lots to come to grips with and navigate. To that end, kudos for
finding a problem and running with it. :)

------
ndarilek
So I'm not trying to discount the author's company or experiences, but as a
blind person myself, the tone of this article is confusing. My takeaway is
that apps, screen readers and our current concept of computing are supposed to
be terrible for me and difficult to use, but I don't get that. I don't doubt
that someone newly blind after years of productive computer use or someone
blind after a lifetime of being sighted would find things challenging. But if
I suddenly found myself in a wheelchair, I'd likely find aspects of my daily
life post-transition challenging, and would try not to write articles that
made general statements about _every_ wheelchair user's experience and
challenges. :)

Are screen readers difficult to use? Sure, but no more so than typical desktop
environments. Describing them as "requiring special training from
organizations like the Lighthouse for the Blind" feels like a bit of a
stretch. Would some folks require training? Sure, just as they might require
training to learn OS X if they're familiar with Windows, but that's true of
_anyone_ sighted or not, and hardly a requirement. Also, while I agree that
licensing costs for some screen readers are enormous, just about every mobile
and desktop platform has at least one free, competent alternative. Someone
newly blind or blind after years of sighted life might certainly need
training, but in general I find picking up a new screen reader to be no
different than learning any other semi-complex app. If using Word/LibreOffice
is part of your job then you sit down, learn it and become competent with it
over time, or you get trained. Categorizing screen readers as being different
and worse in this regard feels unfair.

"All of the time and energy that goes into creating the perfect user
experience for an app is wasted, or even worse, adversely impacting the
experience for blind users." Again, I strongly disagree with this. The problem
is that UX time and energy is misspent almost exclusively on visual
aesthetics, or even worse, on a certain _type_ of visual aesthetic. For
instance, say you use icon fonts because they're a cool thing to do. That
choice has accessibility impact beyond blindness. Had a UI/UX designer focused
on universal design and on crafting experiences that both look well and
perform nicely from a keyboard/switch user's perspective, that interface will
be visually appealing, nice to use via the keyboard, easy for users with low
hand dexterity using switch controllers, etc.

Again, kudos to you for driving innovation in this space. I wish access tech
didn't always feel like an industry stuck a few decades in the past, or wasn't
being driven forward by companies with a medical-model concept of disability
who view us as a market to be pitied rather than sold to. To that end, I like
seeing exciting tech in this space, even if I can't imagine ever preferring to
shop by a conversational interface. But I read headlines like "Apps are a
nightmare for the visually impaired" and think "huh, _I 'm_ building an app
for the visually impaired and hope it isn't a nightmare." And I worry that,
rather than learning about how universal design can build experiences that
look and work well for _everyone_ , software developers and companies will
read this post and think "I don't have to make my app accessible because blind
people are using special custom interfaces anyway, so when a blind person
tells me my app isn't accessible, I can pretend ARIA attributes are hard and
write them off." Again, not trying to be negative, I just wish folks
understood that we don't need separate interfaces and experiences.

~~~
cmaury
I definitely agree with you that the last thing I would want readers to take
away from this article, is that they don't have to worry about accessibility
or universal design. Until we have better tools, we should be providing the
best possible experience with the tools we do have.

I also agree that we shouldn't be creating separate experiences for the blind.
I think it's generally acknowledged that they end up being worse than a
combined interface, never getting the resources or new features that
experiences for sighted users get.

Where we seem to disagree is on the roll that screen readers play in limiting
the usability of technology. On the one hand they are amazing because they
provide access to technology that would otherwise not exist. On the other
hand, by virtue of the way they function-mapping a 2 dimensional visual
experience into a one dimensional stream of audio-using a screen reader can
only be so efficient.

This lack of usability puts access to technology beyond the reach of many who
are less tech savvy than you or I, and given that the vast majority of people
losing their vision in the US are the elderly, there are a lot of people who
fall into that category. What's worse, the rate of vision loss is set to
double as baby-boomer's age out.

I totally agree that the medical-model of Accessibility sucks, but I think
Screen Readers fall into that category. They seek to adapt an experience
designed for others to the needs of the disabled. Conversational interfaces
have the potential to create a consumer quality experience, that by it's very
nature is accessible (at least to the blind). And accessible by default is the
best possible outcome.

~~~
ndarilek
It's interesting to read that you conceptualize screen readers as rendering a
2-D environment as audio. I'm a very visual/spatial person, but I've always
conceptualized them as rendering a tree of GUI widgets, rather than a visual
environment. I guess it's the difference between thinking of my desk as a
visual collection of objects, and more as an object with an Arduino/RPI in the
top drawer, papers and folders in the second, etc. Not saying either is wrong,
just that maybe it's a matter of conceptualizing UIs as groups of collected
and organized widgets, rather than as laid out on a map. I've come to enjoy
developing with React because I can say "here's my workspace for a given task.
It has a toolbar containing these related functions, these two loosely-related
larger workspaces, etc." Then I let a visual designer come along after and
make things look better. :)

Anyhow, I look forward to reading more about your SDK. Where can I learn more?
I'm building an app that could benefit from a conversational UI on top of the
traditional one and would be interested in reading up on what you offer,
particularly as it's meant for blind users too.

~~~
cmaury
You can check our SDK out at developer.conversantlabs.com. It's currently in a
developer preview. Send me an email at chris@conversantlabs.com. It would be
great to talk more. If our conversation in this thread is any indication, I
think we'll have a pretty good discussion :)

------
radleybobins
Really great article. It's really inspiring to watch someone face their
problem head on, but stay focused on how it helps other people. This
technology will certainly also have applications beyond the visually impaired
community.

------
Chefkoochooloo
I was very excited when I read the title, but was sort of disappointed when i
found out it was mostly shopping. But I do think that they are paving the way
for something special and cannot wait to see where this is in 5 years time.

------
MikeTLive
Ive been told my eyes show eventual macular degeneration. I will not be able
to use this computer. I don't know when it will happen. I will be blind before
I die.

I might have 10years, 20, 30... we don't know.

~~~
RobMurray
That's bad news, I'm sorry. However there's no reason you wont be able to use
a computer. I have been blind since birth and use a computer and a smart phone
every day. NVDA is an excelent open source screen reader for Windows. There
are screen readers for other operating systems too. If you like emacs,
emacspeak makes it talk. on Linux there is Orca, Speakup etc.

------
alcubierredrive
Very very cool. I've met Chris and he is a super nice guy.

------
alanperlman
Great story! They're definitely paving the way when it comes to accessibility.
Need to look more at their SDK...

------
Chefkoochooloo
I thought this article was very insightful and I cannot imagine where this
will be 5 years down the road.

------
thaeli
This is an interesting approach. It does, though, make me think of the command
line.. how many tasks are there that we can do, now, with a command line
reader? Certainly covers stuff like email, at least for somewhat technical
users.

------
trumbitta2
Well, $1800 for a single license. I don't think so:
[http://www.nvaccess.org/](http://www.nvaccess.org/)

~~~
randomgyatwork
JAWS seems to be the standard big businesses target, it costs around $1000.

Although NVDA is free, its not as high a priority for some reason.

------
contingencies
Well done to Target for allowing them to build a product.

------
qntmfred
This is really cool. The key point is your last line

> For the first time accessible technology for the blind can drive innovation
> for everyone else, rather than having to play catchup, and that’s pretty
> cool

I wouldn't say for the first time though. Many solutions designed to address
accessibility needs result in improved UX for all users. My team puts a lot of
emphasis on accessibility for this reason. plug - I'm currently hiring a web
accessibility engineer too so if you're interested find me on twitter
@kenwarner

