Open Source Accessibility 319
tbray writes "The strongest push-back against Massachusetts' effort to institute open, non-proprietary document formats has come from the accessibility community, who claim that Open-Source desktop software lags behind Windows; and thus that a transition to Open Document will amount to discrimination against the blind and those with other disabilities. This is serious stuff. Peter Korn, who's an Accessibility Architect at Sun, has written a massive piece that provides a general introduction to the subject, a discussion of how Open Source is doing on the the accessibility front (things could be worse, but they could be a lot better), and finally, a detailed look at the (interesting) history and (uncertain) future of these issues in Massachusetts. Anyone in Open Source who thinks they can ignore accessibility issues is probably wrong. Getting any younger? Eyes as good as they used to be? This is everybody's issue."
So let's fix it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So let's fix it. (Score:2)
A
Re:So let's fix it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So let's fix it. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what open-source is all about: use the software for free, and if you want enhancements, you add them yourself, or hire someone to do it for you. And we're not talking about "ridiculous
Re:So let's fix it. (Score:4, Informative)
Same thing happens with software documentation:
Analysis, Requirements specifications document.
Design: Design Specification document [with or without UML, DTDs, etc].
Quality control/assurance: (Quality testing metrics documents).
Nobody (at least not programmers) likes to spend their time doing that, which results in a lot of good Open Source projects (just look at sf.net) that have only the source code available. So, when/if someone wants to start helping (be it a programmer or a non programmer) they must dive into the source code, reverse engineer it and (to their better understanding) see how is the program working.
When developing a propietary software for anyone, documentation is the one most important thing, and often the one that programmers hate to do. That is why System designers are better paid than programmers.
In open-source world, nobody cares about documenting [and mantaining the domcumentation] of their software. My personal experience is with VirtualDimension [sourceforge.net] multi-desktop software. I wanted to enhance the program with some ideas I had, but I hated that the only place to understand how it worket was the CVS repository C++ files. Although I know C++ (and I am good at it if-u-ask-me) it is the "logic" of the program what I wanted to find and, well, my time is worth more than what I needed to understand the inners of the program.
The same happened with jabref [slashdot.org]. I would like to contribute to those projects with programming, but bah, at the end, all of them are just a mess.
Returning to the accessibility issue. The only way accessibility could be handled is by creating a base framework (from the GTK, or QT or JSwing or any other GUI toolkits) that provides accessiblity features to the interfaces. This means that the application developers will not need to worry (too much) about accessibility because the "text control" will contain the features by default*(and this is the "most-most-important-issue"*. And, the programmer will just have to addere to a set of minimum accessibility rules (like using system defined colors and fonts [something, the great Mark's sysinternals process explorer [sysinternals.com] doesn't do for example, as after I changed my font DPI to 144, the process list font is not changed and I also use background color as Black and font as white, but it is not adopted by this program)).
* Talking on this "default state" of the features, it is the same story with accessibility as with security. For an example, I know that Java has some interfaces wich allow for accesibility properties (although I have not used them). It also has some classes for secure comunication. But these are not the DEFAULT classes which everyone uses.
Iff Java had implemented security and accessibility in the common controls/classes used by everyone, of course it would be more work for the developers but it would help them to LEARN to implement those features.
Re:So let's fix it. (Score:3, Informative)
Still, if the lack of accessibility tools is a barrier to increased market share, then it's down to the Open Source community to provide them. And this doesn't have to mean unpaid coders - these tools could come from Sun, Novell, IBM etc.
Re:So let's fix it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Need: Management ( check! )
Need: Programmer ( vacant )
Yea, sounds great! (Score:5, Interesting)
Everybody loves FOSS. How come there isn't an FOSC(Free Open Source Consulting) withing the OS movement? And don't talk about how you installed Red Hat for your grandma either. I'm talking about taking 3 months out of your personal time to help deploy a Linux solution for a mid-sized business and not charge them a dime. That's what the OSS developers do every day.
Re:Yea, sounds great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yea, sounds great! (Score:3, Insightful)
They have an IT component that *ought* to be competent in programming or managing programming or procuring applications.
True, Government, itself, is not an IT shop, but they do have an IT shop associated with them. Not many organizations
are IT shops. Most have one associated with them, as part of the organization, but are enabling,
Re:So let's fix it. (Score:5, Insightful)
You and many others are falling victim to Microsoft's red herrings. Open Source has absolutely nothing to do with OpenDocument. Here are some answers (yet again):
1) OpenDocument is a format specification, not a program.
2) Any program, Open Source or proprietary, can implement OpenDocument filters. That is all that is necessary to support OpenDocument.
3) Microsoft is fighting OpenDocument by changing the subject. This is being done to maintain Microsoft's monopoly stranglehold on one of its two profitable rackets.
4) If people think Microsoft Office has better accessibility than OO.o/StarOffice, then they can continue using Microsoft Office. All Microsoft, and any other proprietary company, has to do is write an I/O filter to work with the OpenDocument format.
We need to keep our focus, and not allow ourselves to get diverted into senseless debates about irrelevancies.
Speaking of Accessibility (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Speaking of Accessibility (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention it's 10px Verdana. If you don't have Verdana installed on your system and another font is substituted, it looks about 2px smaller due to Verdana's larger than normal aspect ratio. Given that Mozilla's default is something like 15-16px and many people have to increase the size above the default, I think this isn't the best person to be preaching about accessibility.
Folks, if you have a website, even if it's just a weblog, the most effective thing you can do to increase accessibility is to read Dive Into Accessibility [diveintoac...bility.org] and apply the things you learn to your website.
Accessibility isn't needed for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Accessibility isn't needed for everyone (Score:2)
Re:Accessibility isn't needed for everyone (Score:4, Interesting)
Those charities that push for and fund interoperability efforts could have a much more direct impact on opensource, instead of spending large amounts of money trying to convince vendors to implement accessibility features which may not directly meet their needs, they could actually hire coders to create these features exactly according to their specifications.
Instead of this, these groups seem to be spending all their time and money lobbying.. Why not produce open source accessibility software that not only suits your requirements exactly, but also benefits other people too?
Re:Accessibility isn't needed for everyone (Score:2)
Since they obviously do, and are willing to back that up with money, why not put that money to good use - hiring developers to write code that suits their needs, rather than just moaning about it.
I assume theyre geared towards just moaning because that`s all they can do with proprietary software, but they should realise it would be far more productive to actually improve the situation here rather than just complaining about it.
Re:Accessibility isn't needed for everyone (Score:2)
Re:Accessibility isn't needed for everyone (Score:2, Interesting)
However Microsoft Office XP and 2003 provide additional accessibility tools that Windows XP does not offer out of the box, and that is the issue - but where Massachusetts is already providing reasonable accomodations by continuing to offer Microsoft Office to those with physical disabilities, Microsoft is simply raising up a strawman so that they can avoid having t
Bigger command line text (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bigger command line text (Score:4, Insightful)
accessibility doesn't have ANYTHING to do in a STORAGE FORMAT. this is purely a software issue, with lots of money involved.
how much do you wanna bet these so called "accessibility experts" are getting paid to say they don't want an open document format? who do you think is paying them?
and a sun accessibility expert? come on, this is the company that brought us JAVA, an accessibility nightmare in its own right.
Re:Bigger command line text (Score:3, Insightful)
If one storage format has accessible software for it and another doesn't, then it seems pretty clear that to the end user, accessibility is all about the storage format.
Your task then is to get people to take the long view: that on a long enough timeline, an open standard is always going to end up more accessable than a closed binary one. Open formats tend to become more acessible over time as more software becomes available, closed binary ones b
Re:Bigger command line text (Score:2)
When making a program (or a website) then you need to be BOTH!
The accessibility guidelines can sometimes be followed too closely and makes things COMPLETELY UNSABLE for those who most need it, and have no improvement for anyone else.
I work as a web developer and see deadful things all the time (I've seen people put alt tags on bullet points!), which could be avoided if people would think alittle (or jus
Not just OSS in Mass? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean there is more than one office software vendor isn't there?
Yes, yes. I am new here
Re:Not just OSS in Mass? (Score:4, Informative)
Since 3rd party filters are already in development, this whole scrum in Mass. is really pointless. Most agencies will probably just roll out the filter.
Re:Not just OSS in Mass? (Score:2)
In the Massachusetts case it doesn't just have to be OSS in use. Surely some office software vendor will provide support for OpenDocument AND accessibility.
The problem isn't that Word "supports accessibility" and that the various Open Document format word processors don't. The issue is that Windows support for the disabled sucks ass and the hooks, API's, and display features needed for the disabled are not available at all. The result is third party companies write hacks like JAWS that are really a way
Then use closed source (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, that's the beauty of it; any (specialized for a certain disability) application can implement the standard at no cost or risk besides the development itself.
Personally, I'm waiting for a bunch of BSD-like licensed libraries that implement translation of Open Document from and to other common formats like HTML, plain text, LaTeX, PDF, etc so anybody can suffice with just a few lines of code to support the Open Document format.
Reading TFA... (Score:5, Informative)
TFA actually has considerable praise for open source's accessibility in itself:
Another important question is the extent to which the Open Document file format itself supports or fails to support accessibility. This comes up for things like storing the alternate text tag for an image, or noting the relationships of labels with the objects they label in on-line forms. While a thorough examination of the file format specifically for these issues still needs to be done, much of ODF is based on standard web technologies like SMIL for audio and multimedia, and SVG for vector graphics, which have and continue to be vetted by the World Wide Web Accessibility Initiative processes. We also know that two of the existing applications that currently read/write ODF can export Tagged PDF files in support of PDF accessibility, and Adobe has already conducted some tests to verify that accessibility across that translation is preserved (and thus must exist in the original ODF file). Finally, at this very moment the OASIS Technical Committee that created ODF is looking into forming a specific subcommittee to examine ODF for just these accessibility issues and address any shortcomings found.
This is in stark contrast to proprietary file formats like those used by Microsoft Office. Those formats are totally opaque, with no peer review of accessibility issues possible. Thus we cannot objectively tell how well the Microsoft Office file format supports accessibility, or say whether it does a better or worse job than ODF.
I can afford to ignore it. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I can afford to ignore it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Marketshare (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't really see a problem, though. It seems reasonable to make an exception with open formats for those who need aid. We let seeing-eye dogs in where pets aren't allowed.
And as far as the public face goes - dissemination of info to the public, that is - that should really be in 508 compliant HTML, shouldn't it? Which means no Word, PDF, openoffice, etc. anyway.
re: 508 compliance is the right idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The Microsoft camp seems to be rather oportunistic in when they choose to extol the virtue of handicap-accessiblity
Re: 508 compliance is the right idea (Score:2)
+ it was not hard to switch settings to make it 508 compliant. Of course i do wish there was a way to use no client side scripting, but that wont happen.
Exceptions (Score:2)
The rights of the individual (Score:5, Informative)
Some were incensed at the American's with Disabilties Act (ADA) when it was passed, wondering why they had to go through all this trouble to accomodate a tiny fraction of the population. But the disabled population is not that small [dpi.org] and it grows larger every year due to various factors [prb.org] most people don't think about or recognize.
Before getting back into computing, I spent 8 years in social services, working with the autistic and developmentally disabled. You don't realize what challenges there are to everyday living until you see how hard it is for anyone with any type of disability to do the simple tasks we "normals" take for granted.
Ultimately MA is going to have to decide whether it can afford to turn its back on a small slice of its populace or continue the process of inclusion. I'm hoping for the latter, since within the disabled spectrum, there are plenty of people still capable of working and being productive members of society.
Even if I lost the use of my legs, I could still program...
What really needs to be done (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is using them. The one thing Microsoft can't have is an open format supported for Office documents. Office is the real monopoly, windows loses a lot of its lockin if it weren't for Office.
Microsoft will fight this tooth and nail. What Mass. should do if the Opendoc inititave fails, is mandate that their provider of office software publically provide specifications for their file formats. If Microsoft refuses that, I think they should return to court on antitrust violations.
I'm sick of Microsoft always getting away with playing dirty. And it is playing dirty to use people who have accessibility issues using a comptuer to maintain your monopoly.
They already did that (Score:2)
I'm not sure this is accurate (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm not sure this is accurate (Score:2)
Anyway, I don't know what software it is, but have you considered the free magnifier powertoy? http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powe
Youth (Score:4, Funny)
Getting any younger?
Yes, I am.
Re:Youth (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, but this makes my blood boil... (Score:5, Insightful)
How on earth can an open-source document format be a discrimination against the blind and/or handicapped?
If it's a documented standard -- and it will be -- an open-source document format can actually be converted into other documented formats (ASCII text, ISO-8859-X text, CSV, RTF, HTML, etc, even sound waves through a vocal synthetizer) that are actually easier to use for blind users!!
Compare and contrast this with the plight of handicapped people who are now using proprietary document formats, created by proprietary applications under proprietary operating systems... and who find out, the hard way, that their applications do not work anymore with their Braille readers under the newest version of the operating system. Or that they have to go through countless hoops to convert the proprietary document into another proprietary format, that they have no way to check for accuracy and/or problems. Or that can be endlessly confused by the changes that each version of ____________ [insert application name here] intoduces in its already confusing GUI.
I worked for about a year and a half for a non-profit that was dedicated to improving the access of blind people to computer technology. Those were the days of DOS and BBS, a time many blind people remember as a true 'golden age', since most information was textual, and there was very little that could not be done with a simple Braille terminal emulator and/or speech synthetizer.
Windows changed all that, for the worst. I knew people who used to be good programmers despite their handicaps who found themselves out of a job. Others that found themselves increasingly locked-out of the Internet revolution because the www was increasingly becoming graphical.
And now, people attack Open Document on the basis that it creates discrimination against blind people? Come on, that is the most ridiculous argument I have heard in a long while. If anything, a truly universal, XML-based document format would be perfect for these users!
In the worst possible case, I will volunteer to write converters to make sure these new documents can be exported into proprietary apps. And I am not joking: this was actually one of the things I did at the non-profit I mentioned above.
Re:Sorry, but this makes my blood boil... (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you should write a letter to some of the folks involved. The article mentions at least these three:
Mass. Commission for the Blind [mass.gov]
MATP Massachusetts Assistive Technology Partnership [matp.org]
The National Council on Disability [ncd.gov]
There may be others that should be included as well, but that would be a start.
Re:Sorry, but this makes my blood boil... (Score:2)
I think you misread the text... (Score:3)
"...a transition to Open Document will force Microsoft to make changes to their business practices that will amount to discrimination against their blind lust for money and therefore they are lobbying hard to buy the voices of
the blind and those with other disabilities."
Re:Sorry, but this makes my blood boil... (Score:2)
RTFA much? (Score:3, Informative)
Second, OpenOffice's accessibility functionality is not second-tier to MS Office's. Rather, all the useful accessibility functionality is coded not into MS Office but into the 3rd-party solutions which interoperate with it. Sure, the end effect
Re:RTFA much? (Score:2)
Not to mention the third-party-addon argument is pretty much universal and not restricted to accessibility plugins.
JAWS only works well with IE (Score:2)
Re:JAWS only works well with IE (Score:2)
Even after the launch of Mozilla, there's always been questions about the API stability and there has not been much if any thirdparty software which encapsulates Mozilla tech, which is a bit of a shame.
Re:JAWS only works well with IE (Score:2)
How about lynx? I'm pretty sure that works with speech synthesisers. Obviously you wouldn't get the pictures or animations, but... er...
Re:JAWS only works well with IE (Score:2)
Re:JAWS only works well with IE (Score:2)
Has he tried Fangs [standards-...ndards.com], the aural extension for Firefox? Opera has aural support too.
Re:JAWS only works well with IE (Score:5, Informative)
JAWS 7 in fact works with Firefox 1.5. Ask your friend to try that combination -- Firefox 1.5 RC 2 is avalable on mozilla.org. Your friend can also try Window-Eyes 5.5 with Firefox 1.5 -- it works great.
It took me since 2001 to get all of the APIs implemented that were required for Mozilla accessibility on Windows. We also had tons of keyboard, focus and UI issues to fix. Then there is the new stuff -- accessibility for JavaScript/DHTML/AJAX applications. Firefox 1.5 is the first browser to provide the ability for authors to make custom DHTML widgets accessible. See http://www.mozilla.org/access [mozilla.org]. So we're going beyond the status quo.
For any application with any kind of document viewer or editor application with its own engine, accessibility requires a lot of work in the code. After that it requires a great deal of cooperation from screen reader companies so that two complex systems interact correctly.
Aaron Leventhal
http://www.mozilla.org/access [mozilla.org]
Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the various 'disabled' communities don't like the support that their 'given' with an open source project then they need to get programming the support themselves or raising funds so they can fund coffee addled nerds to do it for them.
In fact, if this is the only thing thats stopping Open Office being supported by local governments then I'll be supprised if its not in the next release.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Open source opportunity (Score:3, Insightful)
Accessability (Score:2)
Re:Accessability (Score:2)
Re:Accessability (Score:2)
Windows XP Home Edition Eligibility according to MS
Windows 3.1 - NO
Any Evaluation Version - NO
Any Server Version - NO
Windows 95 - NO
Windows 98/Windows 98 SE - YES
Windows Me - YES
Windows NT 3.51 - NO
Windows NT 4.0 - NO
Windows 2000 Professional - NO
Windows XP Professional - NO
I'd disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
The main problem is documents which can only be opened in the particular application that generated them. Microsoft documents are an example of this; although as they're so popular, pretty much all accessibility companion-style programs sit on top of Word and change the style of delivery (style, size, clarity, to speech, etc) appropriately.
So if everyone used open source, standards-compliant documents, there would be no need for the majority of accessibility programs. I think moving to open source document formats removes much of the accessibility problem at the source, rather than working round it, which is what most solutions do at the minute.
Accessibility == Good Development Practices (Score:2)
Non Sequitor Argument? (Score:5, Insightful)
What does one necessarily have to do with the other? Microsoft can put in the fileformat in their software just like OpenSource apps.
Re:Non Sequitor Argument? (Score:2)
The Issue is "Screen Readers" (Score:2, Insightful)
There are dozens of people working on screen readers for various linux GUIs. Just do a google search for "linux screen reader". But none of them are as full-featured as JAWS, and
Re:The Issue is "Screen Readers" (Score:3, Insightful)
As the go to person for JAWS at my workplace I really have to say that JAWS blows. Because of the GUIed nature of windows it constantly reads garbage that even a blid person doesn't need to know. The voices are no better than the good old Talking Moose [zathras.de] that used to run on my Mac 512. The licencing is horrible and until about a year ago *required* a floppy to install correctly, and if that floppy failed you had to wait while they sent you a new one. No, in all h
If they're that serious about accessibility, they (Score:2)
Sheesh!
What will they come up with next? That Open Source software is too expensive? Not customizable enough? Putting too much power into the monopolists hands?
Or maybe, staircase manufacturers should lobby goverments to forbid ramps and elevators. Indeed, on a ramp, the elderly may slip, and an elevator is unusable by a retard. They harm accessibility, bring ba
I call bs! (Score:2)
I don't thinks that you can roll out ODF in a day and things will just run smoothly. There will have to be a transition period where documents are available and accepted in multiple formats.
Re:I call bs! (Score:2)
I don't believe that anyone thinks that you can...
Competitive Bid Process (Score:2, Insightful)
Give them large monitors (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory monitor off reference (Score:5, Informative)
Where were they in 2000 (Score:2, Insightful)
When Microsoft Office did not offer such accessibility features? Where was the pissing and moaning then?
Let's not forget that People's Republik of Taxachussetts (Sorry, I live in Mass, I get disgusted by the rampant tax-and-spend mentality that has reigned here for years) is doing this to cut back on spending as well as to make documents accessible for as long as technology exists without dealing with vendor lock - and yet, for those folks who have handicaps which prevent their working with the current ve
Open Office Evolution/Intelligent Design (Score:2)
OpenOffice 2.0 is a great start. Integrated voice-recognition, closed-captioning and text readers will come with time. For now, just get the product out there, get as many people as possible using it as their first choice in software. I believe
my 0.02$ (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone with any visual impairments (like myself) can use ZoomText, or another comparable programm on windows, like they did with MS Office. No big difference, and not openoficce's job to fix.
As for the blind.... I'm sure one could hack together a screen reader for ODT, at least? It's a bloody xml file, after all. Provided the screen reader/braille reader already works with windows, it should be trivial.
What bothers me more personally is how IE systematically ignores the 'larger font sizé' option on a lot of webistes. I figure this is because of some use of css, but I didn't put too much effort in finding out what exactly causes the problem.
Let's not confuse the issue here. (Score:2, Insightful)
Open Format != Open Source
-mix
Speaking as someone working in the AT industry ... (Score:3, Insightful)
... and also someone who loves open source, I have come to the same conclusion myself -- that Open Source has a way to go before it can stand shoulder to shoulder with its proprietary counterparts. The fact is, open source is already at a disadvantage when it comes to accessibility -- because so many of the accessibility features out there are being pushed by the vendor (making them effectively proprietary).
Consider Flash. It is, as some of you may be surprised to know, accessible -- but only when used with a Microsoft toolchain. That's right; for users with special needs to use Flash, it has to be being rendered through Macromedia's plugin (obviously), in MSIE, to one of a very limited group of screen readers only available for Windows (JAWS, WindowEyes, one or two others) and all on, you might have guessed by now, Windows platforms only. Even the Macintosh -- which is natively considerably more accessible than Windows (or any other OS, essentially) doesn't support accessible flash.
We've all heard the rumours of Microsoft releasing its "Flash Killer" application; maybe it will be natively more accessible than Flash, but then where will that leave open source and operating systems besides Windows? Does anyone think Microsoft cares about the greater good enough to want to make the spec -- much less the product -- available for any other operating system?
Now consider Adobe Acrobat. Version 7 is chock full of accessibility features that revolve around the new tagged document structure. How many apps currently generate tagged documents? Not many. Again, Adobe has partnered with Microsoft so that just about every Office product will generate tagged PDF. There are one or two other desktop publishing packages that do it. OpenOffice managed to squeak tagged PDF 2.0 into their product (and good on them for doing it) but the support is minimalistic; it is an attempt at addressing the problem but is shy of the mark as far as users with special needs go.
Never mind that OpenDocument is anyway readable on free operating systems; users with disabilities generally wouldn't touch Linux with a ten-foot pole because the screen reader software available for it is also somewhat lacking where it counts; consider JAWS by Freedom Scientific, where they employ dozens of employees to do nothing more all day long than write key mappings and shortcut-features to applications. Guess which browser is better supported in JAWS -- MSIE, or Firefox? Guess how good the custom support for OpenOffice.org is in JAWS? You would be correct to guess it is non-existent. These people have invested thousands (and in many cases, over the USD $10,000 mark) in technologies to allow them to use computers to do their jobs or just live; it's unfair enough to have something continue to be inaccessible to them, but considerably worse (and understandably frustrating) to have something be accessible then have it taken away for the benefit of others.
The only potential saving grace in the browser market is the release of Opera for free; since it has better innate accessibility features than either Firefox or MSIE (which has virtually none) there may be some mass migration to these systems. HTML is inherently one of the most accessible forms of markup available today because of its strong, structural meaning and the fact that it is one of the very few languages that are completely open, appropriate for most uses, and heavily wide-spread.
Several opens-source projects have already made accessibility an important part of their web projects; for example, Plone [plone.org] and especially Atutor [atutor.ca] are star examples of how you can build a great application and still have it accessible to users with disabilities by design.
I would like to congratulate all authors and participants on those projects and others who work at making open source software accessible to everyone, not just the enabled majority. I would like to encourage everyone else to do some re
Oh, please! (Score:2)
Blind people lack (good) eyes, not brains. They'd not seriously cry over a document format, which is a backend-issue, when their specific problem is with frontend presentation.
Heck M$ Word will almost certainly include OpenDocument import (it will, of course, lack OpenDocument export), so there's really no reason here.
Follow the money, people. Who stands to lose if MA goes ahead? M$, nobo
Skinnable Apps (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess what - a skinnable interface is one that can easily be adapted to overcome a given visual handycap, and a non-skinable interface is one that will be effectivly unusable for some people with normal or better intelligence - period.
Instead of dissmissing skinnability, how about working on any of three things:
1. Skin deliberately to address at least some common visual disabilities.
2. Code an app that shows how persons with common visual impairments see things (i.e. click button 1 to see what this web-page or interface would look like to a person with red-green color blindness... click button 2 to see what it looks like to someone with blue color blindness, click button 3 to see how this looks to the average 50 year old, etc.).
3. publicize how OS is addressing these needs, if only to offset some of this "Open Source sounds like Communism" FUD you're so concerned about.
Re:I have no doubt they'll cave (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I have no doubt they'll cave (Score:2, Insightful)
No, this is not flamebait, it's just the simple truth regarding politics in general. When was the last time any elected official acted in the best benefit of the common good rather than pander to lobbiests? See DMCA for example, and the bro
Re:I have no doubt they'll cave (Score:2, Insightful)
fact is that if you have poor sight then you either use windows
or ignore the desktop (which you can do with emacspeak for instance).
This is a poor state of affairs.
Ironically, slashdot has a "type what you can see in the box" check for anonymous posting which is TOTALLY UNACCESSIBLE. Get it fixed guys.
Phil
Re:I have no doubt they'll cave (Score:2)
In Mass, we're talking about government. Government has a responsibility to represent, support and answer to everyone. It's the very reason for government's existence. Reasonable efforts need to be made to support those with disabilities. I'd suspect that we would disagree on what constitutes "reasonable effort" but we do agree that disabled people have a right to access government services.
Slashdot, on the other hand, is not a government service. In a rational soc
Re:I have no doubt they'll cave (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't just grasping for straws, here. I used to work for the gov, and accessability is, and always has been, a big issue. All our web pages had to be ADA compliant, etc...
Of course it would be a total shame to see this make Mass. switch, but if OSS developers want adoption by governme
'Accessibility' and 'Lowest Common Denominator' (Score:3, Informative)
Might it be better to say that protecting the rights of the disabled need not be sinking to the lowest common denominator?
Most if not all accessibility standards can be implemented in ways which do not detract from the ability of those who don't require them work to the best of their abiliy. It would be difficult to argue, for example, that cutting a small ramp into a curb and sidewalk for thos
Re:I have no doubt they'll cave (Score:3, Insightful)
- No or poor support from vendors to anything except MS Office
- Packaged speech recognition on platforms other than Windows
Had you take the time to read TFA (but being a shill, you could not), you would have learned the following things
- Open Source is pretty efficient in providing accessibility API
- MS and MS Windows are the more deficient systems concerning accessibility API
- Support for accessibility from vendors is specific to MS Office in Windows
- Support for accessibi
Re:I have no doubt they'll cave (Score:2)
No shit!!! I hate how those handicapped freaks get all the good parking spots. And how come my tax dollars have to pay for some stupid ramp up the courthouse steps for a few old farts in wheelchairs???? Those bleeding heart libs are ruining everything!!!! Why don't we just take those handicapped leeches on society out back, put a bullet in the head and move on for the common good?!?!? I swear, when I pull up the the liquor store just down the road
Re:on the other hand (Score:3, Funny)
I don't have hands, you insensitive clod!
Re:on the other hand (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:on the other hand (Score:5, Insightful)
on the other hand, open source means anyone (with the skills) can take matters in to their own hands and address these issues to a higher standard than a commercial product, eventually.
A claim so vague that it can't be verified or invalidated. WTF do you mean by "higher standard"? That seems to imply that there exists a single optimum solution to the problem that will make everyone happy. Well, if you have it I would like to hear it. Meanwhile, in the real world the "higher standards" dependend on both personal preference and problem domain. For example, is Linux at a "higher standard" than Windows? Depends on who you ask and in what context. Even in the open source world there are often competing(occaisionally conflicting) ideas on how to solve a particular problem, competition is good!
Where as in a big profit motivated company may not want to spend time and money to go beyond covering the majority.
Care to back this up? Or even explain how open source is really all that different? I have a lot of niche needs, and I find that open source doesn't cover them as often as it does. I use a propietary OS(Mac OS X) that covers a lot of my niche needs very well. I also use some other propietary software(in the realm of language learning) that is outside the majority, but it works rather well. There are open source alternatives, but they don't work as well for me personally. Does that mean they don't neccasarily work well for you? Of course not! Does the ideology put behind the product have any bearing on how well it functions? Again, not really. Thats not to say I don't use FOSS, on the contrary, I also use FOSS products that meet other demands that I have(I use emacs to write Ruby programs). So what was your point again?
What is it with these vacuous fanboy comments on slashdot anyway?
Re:on the other hand (Score:2)
Higher standard as in better accesiblity for more people, pretty simple to understand in this context. Before you ask how that can be measure, consumer testing, you get the actual users to use the different products and ask them.
"Meanwhile, in the real world the "higher standards" dependend on both personal preference and problem domain. "
Accessibility is not an exact science. But like other things such as art & music, you can still compare and measure 'in t
Re:on the other hand (Score:2)
But a copmany can make a good chunk of change selling something like an office application to the government. Whether it suits the majority of users or not, they are not going to get any of those sales unless it meets a minimum level of accessibility. Seems like a good motive to meet those requirements especially if it is going to make you one of the only players in that field.
Sure any p
Re:on the other hand (Score:2)
To all those vehemtly disagreeing with the above post: there was an example a few years ago that happened in Norway I believe. Norway, if I remember correctly, has two widespread languages. Miscrosoft Windows was only available in one of the languages, due to the economic loss of adding a relatively obscure language. I remember Norway threatening to move to KDE, which did support the language. The details aren't really important. The point is that sometimes a corporation can't or won't support somethi
Re:on the other hand (Score:2)
Also, I love how you use "eventually" as though it actually means something for profit seeking people/businesses.
Re:Umm uhhh..... (Score:3, Funny)
Can we assume you're using it?
Re:Eyes as good as they used to be? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't recommend that - there are some places where you really don't want papercuts.
Besides, if you can't see the computer screen, where you can adjust the contrast, brightness, and font size, and perhaps even get a screen reader to read the text to you, just how are you going to see text on paper ?
Re:Eyes as good as they used to be? (Score:2)
A lightbulb and a magnifying glass have done quite nicely for at least a hundred years before the computer monitor was created.
Re:Eyes as good as they used to be? (Score:2)
Re:Uaaah... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Eyesight doesn't matter (Score:2)
Well, we're not that far off the vision part. Not sure how you're going to fit the batteries inside your head to power the laser beams though.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/ 1 2/0840243&tid=126&tid=14 [slashdot.org]