toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 9/13/19, Rafael Machado <rafaelrodrigues.machado@...> wrote:
I just get registered at the forum, but have no permission to post there.
The message "Sorry! no permission to post a reply" is presented to my
Em sex, 13 de set de 2019 às 08:16, Rafael Machado <
I will contact the community you mentioned to get feedback and align
Hope to hear comments and feedback of other member of discussion (here at
EDK2, that is where the work will happen).
Thanks and Regards
Em ter, 10 de set de 2019 às 20:50, Ethin Probst
I've posted this to the largest forum of blind visually impaired
people I know of to date and have gotten some excellent feedback from
them. I also provided in that post a link to this discussion. However,
I can't possibly forward all their questions onto this group (and I
doubt I can answer them all). If you wish to join the discussion over
there, its over at https://forum.audiogames.net/post/461041/#p461041.
(If we can find a way to merge the two discussions, that would make
everything easier. If we can't, I'm fine with that.)
On 9/10/19, Rafael Machado <rafaelrodrigues.machado@...> wrote:
Hi Ethin and allUEFI,
As Leif mentioned, my mastering thesys was the implementation of a
reference code so a driver for audio at pre-OS would be possible,
eliminating the first barrier for the creation of a screen reader at
that is the lack of audio drivers.generic
My project was based on Intel High Definition Audio, so it is not a
code that would fit at all scenarios, but it a first step.editions of
The idea was to proceed this work using the Google Summer of Code
initiative,and I will try my best to make this happen in future
Unfortunately my thesys was written in portuguese, because there was
nothing related to BIOS in Portuguese, so the decision was to write insoon
Portuguese to help the community to attract brasilian developers. As
as I find some slot, I'll translate to english.they
But you are not alone. Just in Brazil I discovered around 30 blind
developers that area waiting for accessibility at BIOS. Also had some
contacts from US and Ireland.
So it is a market to be explored. Everyone will win.
The companies, because they will attract more people and their
and the ones who need accessibility.
By the way, most of the population will need accessible solutions if
live enough. This includes the uefi community members, that today dothat
have special needs, but that may require it in future.
Accessibility is not a wast of money.
This ia what I would like to show to the UEFI community.
Hope to have the opportunity to present this in some future event.
Since this discussion was started, who knows what are the next steps?
My code is available at github if someone gets interested (ps.: The
has failures. It was just a Prof of Concept)
Lets keep the discussion, because it is important.
Thanks and Regards
Rafael R. Machado
Em ter, 10 de set de 2019 17:00, Ethin Probst
Woops, I just realized while reading my message after I'd sent it
I had linked to the wrong document. The priority system is outlined
over here (https://freebsoft.org/doc/speechd/ssip.html#Top). This
document discusses SsIP -- the Speech Synthesis Interface Protocol.
On 9/10/19, Ethin Probst <harlydavidsen@...> wrote:
While conquering refreshable braille displays would be nice, I
we should take it in stages. (Some blind people would want this in
along with the accessibility subsystems, however I do not believe
would be the wisest approach.) Instead, I think we should do what
suggest: implement protocols for communicating with audio devices
(both input and output) and add audio hooks for the HII. (We could
even make those audio hooks just general hooks/events instead of
partitioning them for a particular purpose.)
You mentioned that not all devices 'have a keyboard'. This is most
definitely true, but not all devices have audio outputs and/or
either. Therefore, if we can't mandate it for *all* devices,
we could only mandate it (or at least somehow infer it as a
requirement) for devices that both have an interaction mechanism
form of interacting with the system directly via the HII and not,
over the wire, because that would be superfluous) and have
mechanisms/devices/drivers/... for audio output at minimum. (Audio
input is not necessarily something that is required unless the
is controlled primarily by voice, but I think having voice controls
a bit beyond the UEFI specification and is not something UEFI
worry about. Voice control is not something you should have in the
preboot environment anyway, correct?)
So, I think the first stage we should work on should include:
- Implementing protocols for communicating with audio outputs
worry about inputs right now)
- Implementing protocols/hooks/events that can be intercepted in
HII by a foreground/background UEFI driver/application
- Implementing some kind of method to allow the accessibility
protocols to read what is drawn to the text when navigating around
The third item -- when implemented properly -- will prevent the
accessibility subsystem from reading everything on the screen every
time the "cursor" moves. Perhaps another good idea would be to
implement some kind of priority system for text-to-speech, like
On 9/10/19, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...> wrote:
Apologies for the delay in responding - I personally don't tend to
read the RFC list (and I know that applies to some other
who have now subscribed).
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 06:15:18PM -0700, Ethin Probst wrote:
I'm new here, and was recommended to the TianoCore project by
someone over at the UEFI forum. I've run across TianoCore before,
and like the project.
Before anyone gets worried by the subject line, no, this is not
kind of legal thing. Its just something I believe needs to
Back in 2016-2017 I contacted the UEFI forum about two problems,
of which was the format of the spec, which I figured out on my
own. The other problem was not so easily dealt with. Te other
problem relates to accessibility of UEFI-compliant systems and
platform firmware to persons with disabilities. As it currently
stands, such a thing is nonexistent. To be fair, I completely
understand the difficulty that such a thing would require, and I
would fully agree if we still used the PC-AT BIOS systems -- yes,
indeed, I would never suggest this kind of thing on such a system
given that there was no actual standard of any kind for
BIOSes. However, now that UEFI is here, we have such a
As it currently stands, people with low vision or blind people
access to their computers in the general sense (I am blind
myself). We can do pretty much anything anyone else could do. We
code, play games, all that. There are few things that we cannot
do. One of those things is managing our systems firmware in the
As it stands now, I can only boot other OSes or disks via
memorization. While that worked on BIOS machines (I have, or had,
old Toshiba laptop that was BIOS-based), it no longer works
UEFI is mercurial. When I access the boot menu now, I play a game
chance. If the cards are in my favor, the OS I want to boot
and I can go on my way. But if the cards aren't in my favor, I
up making something happen that was unintended, and, worst of
have no idea what I did.
However, the boot menu is only one portion of a platform firmware
UI. What about the setup utility or other utilities offered by
computer manufacturers? What about diagnostic utilities,
bootloaders, etc? What do I do with those? Well, I only have one
option -- sited assistance. If I go into my computers setup
I cannot trust myself and say to myself, "OK, I know what I'm
doing. All I need to do is change x and save and quit." No, I
do that, because memorizing such a complex interface is extremely
difficult, and its something I wouldn't expect anyone to do.
My proposal is simple, and I'm posting it here because I'd likeSo, first of all, I need to point out that what you suggest would
comments and feedback before it actually gets implemented (it
take a lot of time, I'm sure): mandate, in the UEFI
that accessibility features for persons with disabilities must be
implemented and documented, and, if such features are not
implemented, then that vendor is not compliant with the
specification. Place strict minimum requirements for what the
accessibility features should do and how they should work.
very difficult for the UEFI Forum to mandate. *But* I don't think
needs to be a problem.
UEFI primarily exists as a means through which interoperability
guaranteed. This means it does not tend to so much mandate what is
actually implemented in a platform, as it defines how it behaves
is. This is not 100% true, but suffice to say that mandating the
functionality you are asking for *without* having a reference
implementation available would likely simply be ignored.
If you want to turn thumbscrews, get Microsoft to add the
to their windows logo requirements :)
However, as much as it is difficult to force people to develop
support, if a functional reference implementation was published
a permissive open source license, it would take a pretty
incompetent product owner not to incorporate it in their products.
Now, I'm sure someone out there will ask me how this can be
done. Well, that's why I've joined the group -- though as I
familiarize myself with EDK2 development and all that I may
be able to participate as more than just an accessibility expert,
sorts.I have added Rafael Machado on cc. He did a PhD on firmware
accessibility, including a prototype implementing an audio driver
EDK2. The resulting thesis can be found at
As a side note, I have been blind all my life. I was born with
retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), which resulted because I was
at 26 weeks. My retina was detached, and, though the doctors
attempted to fix it, it would not remain attached, and there is
chance of it getting fixed now. I would neither want nor care for
such a cure, however. I have lived my entire life blind, and
the thought of gaining site back is appealing, I am unwilling to
through the years and years of rewiring and reconditioning of my
brain that would be required for me to survive with site. To me,
is simply not worth the cost.
But back to the discussion at hand: I would be happy to discussYes, I agree, operating systems are already doing their things.
the accessibility features would work and what would be
required. Even standardizing, through the specification, a key
combination to toggle the accessibility features would be nice,
that would alleviate the major problem of a blind person buying a
new computer and not knowing how to enable the accessibility
features. The overarching goal would be to make the preboot
environment (including applications run within it) accessible and
usable by blind and visually impaired people as a boot service
Again, mandating such a key combination is not necessarily
that the UEFI specification can do. Some devices won't necessarily
have a keyboard.
Some things the UEFI specification could do is:
- Add protocols for Audio output (and possibly input) and talking
- Add audio hooks for the Human Interaction Interface subsystem
EDK2 could then start adding device drivers producing these
and enable the support for some reference platforms.
Would we need any specific support for things like refreshable
It would be superfluous to make this a runtime service, as allAgreed.
major OSes already have accessibility features. Plus, managing
a thing would be impossible to do.
This email has gotten quite long, so I will suspend theBest Regards,
of functionality and how I would like it to work for a future
once everyone has gotten on board.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Ethin D. Probst
Ethin D. Probst
Ethin D. Probst
Ethin D. Probst