1 of 21

Digital Audio Workstations: Opening a DAW for Accessibility

Jacob Harrison (Presenter)¹, Amy Dickens², Alex Lucas³, James Cunningham³, Tillmann Richter², Laurel Pardue², Spencer Rudnick², Andrew McPherson¹, Franziska Schroeder³

¹Imperial College London, ²Ableton, ³Queen’s University Belfast

2 of 21

Overview of the presentation

What is a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)?

Overview of DAW accessibility for Visually Impaired and Blind (VIB) people

Two participant studies

Discussion and next steps

Quick overview of what I’m going to talk about today
Introduction to digital audio workstations (DAWs), common access barriers, and the state of accessibility for visually impaired and blind (or VIB) people
Going to describe two separate participant studies aimed at identifying access barriers and potential ways to address them
I’ll then go through some of the key findings of our research so far, and open up a discussion around what these findings mean for future developments in music technology and accessibility
Part of the reason that we are presenting this work at a conference like CSUN is that music technology accessibility is quite a niche and specialist area, and we think we could learn a lot from other practitioners in the wider accessibility and assistive technology industry, so we’re very happy to be here and hope to start some interesting conversations

3 of 21

Who we are

Bridging the Gap

Three year AHRC-funded research project
Led by Performance without Barriers research group @ Queen’s University Belfast
Collaboration with Augmented Instruments Laboratory @ Imperial College London
Co-funded by Ableton

Ableton

Ableton make software and hardware for music creation and performance (Live, Push, Link, and Note)
Researching accessibility of DAWs for VIB music makers since 2020.

I am presenting this work on behalf of two groups, which are the Bridging the Gap research group, and Ableton who are a music technology company based in Berlin
Bridging the Gap is a three year research project funded by arts and humanities research council in the UK
It is led by researchers from the performance without barriers research group from Queen’s University Belfast, in Collaboration with augmented instruments lab at Imperial College London, which is where I work.
The project is also supported financially by Ableton, who are co-funding my position with the Bridging the Gap team
Ableton have been making software and hardware for music creation and performance since they were founded in 1999.
They have four products available today, Live (a DAW that is widely used in electronic music production), Push (a hardware controller for Live), Link (technology that helps keep electronic music devices synchronized), and Note (an iOS application for creating musical ideas which can be synced to Live via Ableton Cloud).
Since 2020 a development team at Ableton have been researching accessibility in DAWs with a focus on screen reader accessibility for the VIB community

4 of 21

What is a DAW? - Overview

Digital Audio Workstation
Multiple use cases:

Writing, recording and producing music
Non-musical audio editing e.g. sound design, audiobook and podcast production
Performing live music
Controlling external hardware

Basic functionality:

Recording and editing audio
Recording and editing MIDI
Manipulating sounds using virtual audio effects and software instruments
File management and metadata

What is a DAW? D A W or Digital Audio Workstation
A DAW is used for a number of related but different tasks:

Most commonly associated with writing, recording and producing music
Also used in non-musical audio settings, for example sound design for film, TV or video games, or audiobook and podcast production
DAWs can be used as part of a live music setup, as a means to manipulate or loop live audio or for playing virtual instruments
A DAW can also be used to interface with external hardware such as drum machines or synthesisers, as part of a live performance or studio setup

Nowadays, DAWs are capable of performing a large number of audio processing functions, but the basic functionality of most DAWs consists of

Recording and editing audio and MIDI information
Manipulating sounds using virtual audio effects or software instruments
Handling file and management and editing metadata

5 of 21

Image of a typical DAW user interface

To give a sense of what we are dealing with, on the slide now I have a screenshot of a fairly typical DAW window, which I’ll try and describe
This is a project that has been created using Apple’s logic pro software
On the screen are a number of different pop-out floating windows, and different parts of the screen are dedicated to different functionalities
In the middle of the screen are areas where musical information is presented horizontally from left to right, either as recorded audio, or MIDI notes. On the bottom of the screen is a mixer where different volume levels can be set, and audio effects can be assigned
At the top is a play, pause, recorder, rewind and fast forward button, with information about the tempo, time signature and keysignature of the track
There are three floating windows which obscure other parts of the screen behind them. One of these is an equaliser plugin and the other is reverb. Both of these feature a two-dimensional plot which is used to represent sound visually in either the frequency or the time domain. These visual representations are a mainstay of most DAWs
There is also a virtual effects pedal board, which directly copies the layout and design of guitar effects pedals
So what we end up with is a very busy screen, with every area given over to a particular function, whether it’s mixing, arranging, file management, or manipulating audio effects
For sighted users, there’s a level of ‘glanceability’: it’s possible to check the status of any part of the project without necessarily having to highlight or focus on it

6 of 21

What is a DAW? – Comparison to Analogue

Comparison to analogue recording studios:

Can be entirely ‘in the box’ (e.g. no hardware required)
Affordable and flexible
Highly visual

Often uses graphical representation of analogue equipment (skeuomorphic)

So how is a DAW different to older recording studio technology?
Before the move to digital computer-based studios, analogue recording studios would often take up an entire room, with large mixing desks and outboard effects. No screens and tangible physical equipment
DAWs generally provide most of the functionality of an analogue studio, but entirely within one piece of software, so there is no requirement for large amounts of space and physical hardware.
As a result, they tend to be much more affordable and flexible compared with older recording studio equipment, meaning that more people from different backgrounds have access to music production software
The downside of this is that all of this functionality tends to be crammed into one screen, and so they can be quite unwieldy and complex pieces of software
Analogue studios don’t tend to rely on screens or visual representations of sound, so a producer typically uses their ears to judge the audio output, whereas DAWs tend to be highly visual
It’s also common to see elements of a DAW’s graphical user interface which are designed to look like their analog counterpart, for example knobs and faders are used on screen which require clicking and dragging to adjust

7 of 21

Common Access Barriers for VIB people - Categories

Categories of access barriers:

Barriers related to poor implementation of screen-reader access
Intrinsic barriers related to operating a DAW with a visual impairment
Social barriers e.g. education, stigma

8 of 21

Common Access Barriers for VIB people - Implementation

Access barriers related to poor implementation:

UI elements unavailable to accessibility software e.g. screen reader
UI elements can be poorly labelled e.g. ‘button 1’ vs. ‘mute/solo/record’
Lack of zoom functionality or colour/contrast adjustment
Screen reader verbosity, granularity and order of announcements
Lack of keyboard access or counterintuitive tab order

Highly mouse dependent

Software updates can break compatibility with existing access tools
Third-party plugins can be inaccessible, even if the host DAW is accessible

Lack of standards for audio software

Auxiliary tasks (file management, plugin installation etc.) can also be inaccessible

9 of 21

Common Access Barriers for VIB people – Intrinsic Barriers

Access barriers intrinsic to operating a DAW as a VIB user:

Screen reader output can conflict with audio content
Screen reader output can be fatiguing when focussing on audio content
Visual representation of waveforms, EQ curves, amplitude and peak metering

Inability to ‘glance’ across multiple UI elements

Highly contextual and person-specific

So then moving onto the access barriers which are intrinsic to operating a DAW as a VIB user
These are barriers that VIB people might come across even if screen reader accessibility has been fully thought through and implemented
Screen reader output can conflict with audio content
Screen reader output can be fatiguing when focussing on audio content
Visual representation of waveforms, EQ curves, amplitude and peak metering

Inability to ‘glance’ across multiple UI elements

It’s important to note that these barriers are much more contextual and person-specific. For example some people might not find their screen reader particularly fatiguing, or will have come up with methods of working with a screenreader alongside the audio content in a way which works for them. So it’s important to note that we are not generalising across all VIB DAW users here, but pointing out areas which can be a barrier depending on the context

10 of 21

The Current State of Accessibility in DAWs and Music Tech

Current DAW accessibility is the result of efforts from the music technology industry, as well as user-led and grassroots efforts.
Industry

JUCE
Apple macOS: Logic Pro and VoiceOver
Avid (Pro Tools)
Hardware with accessibility features: Native Instruments, Arturia and Softube Console 1

Grassroots/user-led efforts

Osara for Reaper
Flo Tools for Pro Tools
VOCR

I’m not going to talk a little bit about where we’re currently at in terms of accessibility in DAWs and music technology
Generally improvements to accessibility have come from either the music technology industry, or from user-led and grassroots efforts
In terms of what the industry has done recently, a few notable examples include the updates to the JUCE library, which is what a large number of audio plugins and software is built on. The JUCE developers recently included accessibility features by default, meaning that many third party plugins which use their codebase automatically had screen reader access built in
Apple’s Logic Pro software is a good example of a DAW which is well integrated with the macOS accessibility tools, as it’s developed by Apple itself it benefits from most of the accessibility features that other apple software has. Although this has been implemented in some places better than others, and it’s quite common for software updates to introduce unexpected behaviour in the way that Voice Over integrates with it
Avid, who develop the Pro Tools software have also done a good job of providing basic screen reader accessibility to most of their UI
Native Instruments, Arture, and Softube have all recently released hardware controllers which have some text-to-speech functionality
In terms of grassroots and use-led efforts, there have been some 3rd party and open source software extensions to commonly used DAWs, including Osara for Reaper and Flo Tools for Pro Tools. These provide additional functionality such as extended keyboard shortcuts and macros, and more high level control of screen reader output.
VOCR is another 3rd party tool which is commonly used, although as a last resort when other UI elements are not available to screen readers.

11 of 21

Our research: participant studies - demographics

Two separate studies:

Bridging the Gap (20 participants)
Ableton (23 participants)

DAWs used:

Logic Pro, Reaper, Pro Tools (most popular)
Garageband, Sound Forge, Samplitude, Live, Cubase, Cakewalk Sonar, Band-in-a-box

Disciplines:

Audio Engineer, Musician, Music Producer, Composer, Arranger, Beat Maker, DJ, Audiobooks, Podcasts, Sound designer

Accessibility tools used:

VoiceOver, NVDA (most popular)
JAWS, Narrator
Digital magnification
Optical Character Recognition as a fall-back

12 of 21

Our research: participant studies – study format

Semi-structured interviews conducted over zoom

Between 1 - 2 hours
Focus on musical background, current workflow/setup and future plans
Asked participants to demonstrate a typical workflow using screen share.
“Think aloud” approach

Auto-transcribed then proofread manually
Coded for reflexive thematic analysis (ongoing)

13 of 21

Findings – Ecosystem of Tools

VIB sound creatives employ a complex ecosystem of access tools, commercial products, hacks, workarounds

Highly personalised based on preferences, prior experience, typical use cases
Screen reader settings: verbosity, output channel etc.
Use of hardware
Use of legacy software - ‘if it ain’t broke…’
Longer learning curve compared with sighted users

Usually the result of extensive periods of trial-and-error, frustration with existing tools, additional financial outlay

Probably the most prominent thing to come out of both interview studies is the fact that VIB sound creatives use a complex ecosystem of accessibility tools, commercial products, hacks and workarounds in order to use their tools. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to DAW accessibility

These ecosystems are highly personalised, and come out of a combination of preferences for operating system, affordability, prior experience with similar software

It’s also worth noting that specific DAWs and hardware tools tend to be favoured by people working in different genres and disciplines

The people we spoke to had a wide range of preferences with regards to their screen reader settings, in terms of the speed of speech feedback, the level of verbosity, whether it came from the same audio output as their DAWs audio or a separate channel. Some people we spoke to chose to mute their screen reader for lengths of time and rely on keyboard shortcuts, while other people tended to have it providing constant feedback
Some people made use of external hardware to provide accessibility benefits, for example interfaces which feature tactile knobs and switches

One person we spoke to used a customised braille display which provided feedback on the volume level of a particular track

A common feature of people’s setups was the preference for legacy software, and a wariness of updating to the latest version. There was a general sense of ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ amongst some of the people we spoke to, with a few examples of people using software that is no longer supported on modern operating systems
Due to the need to develop an arsenal of equipment and personalised workflows, there is a much longer learning curve in becoming proficient with a DAW compared with sighted users. Usually workarounds were arrived at after extensive periods of trial-and-error and additional financial outlay from purchasing tools which proved to not be accessible

14 of 21

Findings – Common Tools

Importance of using common tools:

Job opportunities: ability to work in different studios
Social capital. Different genres/disciplines tend to favour different DAWs. Important to be able to ‘speak a common language’

While the previous finding suggests that VIB sound creatives make use of highly specialised setups which cater towards their needs and goals, we also noted that many people placed a significant importance on using common tools that their sighted peers would also use
Many people stated that they would like to be able to walk into any recording studio and be able to use their equipment, but know that this is often not the case as accessibility features may not be installed, and particular ways of working may not be available
It was also noted that using common tools is a way of building social capital. Different genres and disciplines tend to favour different DAWs, for example Ableton Live tends to be a popular choice in electronic dance music. Being able to use common tools also allows VIB sound creatives to share experiences and speak the same language as people in their genre.

15 of 21

Findings - Education

Role of education

Typical pathway (in global North): music technology at secondary school or college
Mainstream schools are not always aware of accessibility issues. Some people get lucky with teacher or mentor willing to learn/adopt accessible techniques
Self-teaching common, particularly when school/college education is limited

Many of our participants discussed their experiences, both positive and negative, in education
A typical pathway to becoming a professional music producer or audio engineer, at least in the global North, is through music technology classes in school or college.
Some of our participants who were educated in mainstream schools reported that the music technology facilities were not accessible, and there was a lack of awareness amongst teaching staff. The exceptions to this seemed to be when people had been lucky enough to have a teacher who was willing to put in additional effort to learn and adopt accessible techniques, and adapt their teaching materials accordingly.
As a result of this hit and miss experience with education, it’s common for VIB DAW users to be self-taught, or to learn from the many online communities, forums and mailing lists related to VIB music makers.

16 of 21

Findings - Community

Role of community

Online communities play a major role in sharing knowledge

Tutorials, forum posts, mailing lists, product reviews, one-to-one tutoring

Open-source, grassroots efforts to develop third-party software
Dialogue with manufacturers/music tech companies

On the topic of online communities, it was clear that they play a major role in many VIB people’s experience of learning to use a DAW

It should be noted that many of the participants on the bridging the gap project were recruited through these online communities, so our participant pool is fairly skewed towards people with experience of these groups
The mailing lists offer practical help in the form of tutorials and product reviews. Some of the more experienced members of these communities also offer one-to-one tutoring. There also seemed to be a level of peer support in these groups, allowing people to share frustrating experiences with people in a similar situation
Another role of these communities are the grassroots and often open-source efforts to develop third-party accessibility tools, such as Osara, which as an accessibility extension for the Reaper software. These groups also communicate with manufacturers and music tech companies, providing critical feedback as well as advocating for improved accessibility

17 of 21

Findings – Mental Models

Mental models:

Linear / tabularised representation: MIDI event lists
Keyboard shortcuts

Ad hoc navigation, not based on current visual/graphical context
Large requirement for memorisation

Anchors: markers, playhead position

Reduce the need to memorise entire song structure or layout of the project
Divides project into usable chunks

User journey may be very different from a sighted user, or original intention of the developer

We were also keen to understand how VIB sound creatives perceived their DAW software, and the techniques they used to navigate what are typically highly visual user interfaces. In our contextual inquiries we tried to get a sense of the mental models that people had of their DAW, and how they might differ from a sighted user

A common feature was the preference towards information presented linearly or in a table. For example a typical way of presenting MIDI note data to a sighted user is with a piano roll interface, which represents notes spatially from left to right, corresponding to their timing and length. This presentation does not have a clear mapping to keyboard navigation, and so many of our participants opted for the MIDI event lists, which does not represent notes graphically, but provides text-based information relating to their timing, and other parameters.
We were also interested in the way that our participants navigated their DAW using keyboard shortcuts. Generally, this led to more of an ad hoc way of navigating, rather than relying on the current visual or graphical context of what was on screen, users might jump from one task to the next based on their instinct as opposed to what the screen might be prompting them to do.
We noted our participants making use of anchors, for example by adding markers to the timeline, allowing them to skip between different sections of a song or project using keyboard shortcut. This divides the project into more usable chunks, and reduces the need to hold the entire song structure or layout of the project in mind
Important to recognised that most DAWs are designed with a sighted person’s user journey in mind, with accessibility tools built around that workflow. The mental model that a VIB person has of their software may actually be very different from what the developers and designers intended

18 of 21

Discussion – Conformance and Revision

Approaches to accessibility: conformance/revision
Conformance

Bring current software up to existing accessibility standards
Full integration with OS accessibility tools e.g. VoiceOver, Narrator
Allows VIB sound creatives to use the same software as sighted peers
Taking a visual UI as a starting point and building VIB workflow around it

Revision

Design a DAW from scratch with VIB workflows in mind
Consider new ways of working and interacting with audio
Specialist control surfaces e.g. tactile and haptic interfaces
Potential lack of crossover with DAWs used by sighted people

So that was a summary of our findings from the interviews. I wanted to wrap up with a few prompts for discussion, some of the ideas that we have been considering as a result of our research so far
To start with, we were interested in considering two different approaches to DAW accessibility, which we’ve called conformance and revision.
So a conformance approach would place an emphasis on ensuring that existing tools meet software accessibility standards, for example by ensuring that user interface elements are made available to accessibility tools through correct labelling and implementation
The effect of this approach would be that VIB sound creatives would maintain their access to the same tools that sighted peers also use, but a potential drawback would be that we would still be starting with a highly visual user interface as a starting point, and building the VIB workflow around it.
On the other hand, a revision approach might take a slightly more radical stance, and think about designing a new DAW from scratch, with VIB access in mind from the beginning. This could involve considering entirely new ways of working and interacting with audio that may not necessarily require a screen reader, for example through specialist control surfaces such as tactile and haptic interfaces.
A potential drawback of this approach is the lack of crossover with sighted people in terms of being able to use common tools, and the risk of potentially further siloing an already marginalised community
So we’re not necessarily suggesting that one way is better than the other, or that the two aren’t compatible somehow, but we think it’s worth considering this balance, and how our approach towards accessibility may have some of these more subtle benefits and drawbacks

19 of 21

Discussion - Experience

What are the differences and needs of beginners vs. experienced/professional VIB music-makers?

Experienced ‘power users’ may have well established workflows and workarounds

VIB workflow can sometimes be faster or more efficient than sighted workflow (e.g. extensive keyboard shortcuts)
May not necessarily want to incorporate new tools or workflows - just want existing ones to work (and not break)

Beginner users face a steep learning curve

Piecing together information from tutorials, forums, tuition, trial-and-error
Financial and time cost in simply getting a DAW that works for them, prior to learning techniques
How many potential VIB DAW users are being lost due to learning curve and costs?

We also wanted to consider the different experiences between beginners and experienced or professional VIB music-makers

For example, many of the more experienced people we spoke to could be described as ‘power users’, with very well established workflows that in some cases allow them to work as efficiently if not more efficiently than their sighted counterparts.
It’s also worth considering that, given the amount of time spent developing these personalised ways of working, they might not particularly want new tools, they just want the existing tools to work, and not break with updates
In contrast, beginner users have not invested as much time in developing their tools, and may be open to new ways of working. But how do we ensure that their learning process is not off-putting? Currently, there is a requirement to invest lots of time and money in getting tools that work, and piecing together information from online tutorials, forums, and often trial and error.
So we are also considering what tools and technologies might make the onboarding process more straightforward, so that we don’t end up losing potential VIB music producers

20 of 21

Discussion - Industry

What can the music tech industry do?

Work together to develop standards for audio software

Ensure plugins and extensions use the same standards as host DAWs

Consider impact of software updates on accessibility tools and workflows
Screen reader, zoom/contrast support as a basic first step
Establish and maintain open dialogue with VIB users