MA To Adopt Short-Term Plug-in Strategy for ODF 124
feminazi writes "Massachusetts is committed to saving documents in Open Document Format. Massachusetts is also committed to using applications that are accessible. Therefore, the Jan. 1, 2007, deadline for the executive branch to begin using applicationsv that default to ODF is being postponed until the applications can be proven to be accessible. 'Instead, the state will on a near-term basis adopt a plug-in strategy to fulfill its policy calling for executive-branch agencies to make use of ODF ... ITD will be following through with testing of the ODF plug-ins in preparation for a phased rollout, expected to begin later this year.'"
Accessibility of ODF (Score:5, Interesting)
This article begs other questions too:
Who will be making the decision (presumably the accessibility lab of ITD)? By what criteria will they make it? Is there a deadline for the decision? Can the ODF plugin for Office be configured to save ODF by default?
Re:Accessibility of ODF (Score:5, Informative)
No, it doesn't. It raises other questions, though.
http://begthequestion.info/ [begthequestion.info]
Mighty high horse you've got there. (Score:2)
Evolution of language should perhaps be slowed in some cases, but this is rediculous. Correcting people for such a minor (and perhaps more popular than the original usage) infraction of idiomatic usage just makes you look like an ass.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Mighty high horse you've got there. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage. This is why we fight.
Clearly the page is partially tongue in cheek, but I do think it's a fair point.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell does "begging the question" mean recursi
Re: (Score:2)
It's one of my pet peeves because it is a well-understood and not uncommon fallacy; if people start to use "begging the question" to mean "raises the question" then we'll need a new word for the fallacy of begging the question. So that misuse is not just an innocuous misunderstanding, it steps on a perfectly useful concept. I don't w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For those who like its "original" definition with respect to electronics, there is a much better word, "tinkerer" which gets across all of the meaning with none of the ambiguity. For the "black-hat" definition, I think "vandal," "evesdropper," and "spy" are appro
Re: (Score:2)
The misuse of "begging the
Re: (Score:1)
I absolutely abhor seeing people try to correct intelligent usage of that phrase. Maybe at one time it meant what you WANT it to mean, but that original meaning is stupid, and noone cares. Language is the art of communicating, NOT of memorizing. If a group of words makes more sense in one definition than another, then guess what? It just got redefined.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. It invites those questions. The slashdot poster raised the questions.
raise [reference.com] versus invite [reference.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
ODF out of Word by default (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Delayed rollout (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Delayed rollout (Score:5, Interesting)
OSX has built in support for screen magnifacation and can read any text you select. I'm pretty sure windows 2000 and higher can do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Screen magnifiers shouldn't be. Windows (XP, probably 2K also) has a built-in magnifier tool that works on any displayed graphics, whatever program it is. (I suppose it might not work with DirectX and video overlays, but that's beside the point.)
Windows also has a screen reader, which I suspect is the problem. OOo's UI needs to be designed to accomodate a screen reader, so that text in dialogs appears to the user as text in dialogs instead of a rand
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not beside the point! My word processor only works with DirectX 10.1 3D accelleration video overlays, you insensitive clod!
-
Re: (Score:2)
Hidden controls aren't really necessary, since Windows has an API specifically designed for providing information to assistive technologies. An app that draws its own controls just needs to implement the necessary discovery interfaces and a properly-written screen reader should function properly with it.
Admittedly, the hidden control solution would probably be easier for something as simple as Solitaire.
Re:Delayed rollout (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how long it will take for them to come out with specialized office suites for those with disabilities instead of bolt on solutions to existing office suites. An application with a GUI doesn't make much sense for someone who is blind. Creating a new office suite specifically for use by those with disabilities would make a lot more sense then trying to bolt on something to existing office suites.
Re: (Score:2)
But we don't see anyone making accesible extensions.
Probably blind people and their advisors feel better buying the easy word processor that everybody uses, from a well-known software company, with some accesibility enhancement, than using a tool that probably adapts better to them, but isn't "easy to use". If they have troub
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know that questioning the motives of the disabled is a non-no; but I do wonder how much of this whole "Only MSOffice supports the disabled" spoiler routine is supported, encouraged and even (indirectly no doubt) funded by Microsoft?
Doesnt matter in the long run. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well hopefully this will cause the OO.org people to add support for such devices very quickly. That would be a net gain for the suite and also show MA that community supported software can work and tailor to their needs.
On another note... this should read "Microsoft Office Granted Temporary Injunction in MA"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on how the text is being rendered. If it is using the windowing system's standard text widgets, then it is possible for something that puts hooks in them to just read anything that is displayed. If, on the other hand, it just asks for a canvas, and draws text on it as if it were an image, then it is much harder for the reader to work out exactly what should be read. In this case, th
Re: (Score:2)
Is thas a backdoor MS move? (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, maybe this will give some impetus for Open Office to get into bed with the accessibility people.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Parent implies that the concern for accessibility is only a pretext; the aim is really the perpetuation of Microsoft file formats (and thus microsoft software)
Re: (Score:1)
In short, yes
But at least some Open Source software, including Firefox, works with the latest version of JAWS. So does the proprietary Adobe Reader. What I don't know is how hard for Sun and the rest of OOo contributors to work with Freedom Scientific(Makers of JAWS) to
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First, state agencies have affirmative responsibilities to hire people with disabilities, so they make up a large fraction of the workforce in state agencies than they do in the private sector. Second, in a state like MA, many groups like the disabled are quite powerful, especially when combined with strong public sector unions. That they were not brought into the process from the beginning was
Re: (Score:2)
They've done something like this with HP in the last few years regarding Linux based products so don't think for a minute they wo
So if I read it right, then... (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems like good news - Microsoft needs to produce such plugins in order to keep doing business with the state; users get a choice in the software they use; and nobody's locked in to a proprietary document format.
Result!
Re:So if I read it right, then... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess it remains to be seen whether "no mass migration" really means "not everyone will be migrated" or "nobody will be migrated". For your and your fellow taxpayers' sakes, one would hope it's the former.
It would seem like a logical thing to do would be to outfit a few departments with no disabled (I guess we're really talking about blind and partially-
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't do that. Anymore than you can stick "a few departments with no disabled" in an inaccessible building.
It is also entirely likely that they want to maintain one platform (for deployment, maintenance, training and support reasons) rather than multiple (and the
Re: (Score:2)
There's a degree of difference between the 2 situations, but in the process of formulating my disagreement with you, I actually find myself conceding the point here.
Would it really, tho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd expect the state to use a cost-effective way of producing the documents.
If the MS Office licences are already paid for, I'd say there's a good chance that sticking with MS Office is a the most cost-effective way of doing it.
If you're adding
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Aren't these sunk costs? Aren't these hundreds of thousands of machines already licensed?
Plus, as a MASS resident who has seen the state screw up almost everything it touches (see collapsing tunnel system link in the OP), I am not looking forward to MA doing a huge rollout of this new infrastucture. History tells me it will a) suck and b) cost me a lot of money. Now I'm not saying migrating to OSS/ODF is a bad idea; I
Re: (Score:2)
- Another pissed off Massachusetts citizen...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but they could cut 95% spendings now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing this would require IT support for two software applications (i.e. MS-Office and OpenOffice.org) which creates various complications. It's much simpler from the technical side to only give the users one application for each task the need to accomplish. In this way state-wide IT policy is very different from a home office install.
All about proportion (Score:3, Funny)
Presumably, there aren't scores of (nearly-)blind people working for the MA government, so the proportion of those with MS-Office + plugin should be really low. The trick is that you should have a doctor-verified vision disability to warrant the most expensive product - not just a don't-wanna-learn disability.
Re: (Score:2)
You're discriminating against the motivationally challenged!
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that we are talking about a group of disabled workers who use accessibility software to do their tasks. They have already diverged rather significantly from the standard IT environment. And I would suspect that supporting this particular
Postal abbreviations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Yes
Re: (Score:1)
"MA" is Korean for, "Hey ma, what're you whining about?"
;-)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seconded by a non-US resident, who may know the general location of Massachusetts but doesn't have a clue about all those two-letter abbreviations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry... couldn't resist...
Re: (Score:2)
Accessibility FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
1) It is clear, that if MA would start to addopt OpenOffice/StarOffice, without doubt there would be plentful of small programming companies who would like to provide plugins/additional apps with OpenOffice.org support. Addoption is slow thingy in any case, so while pilot would be done, access apps would be already aviable. It is just matter of signal what MA sends to software companies;
2) And it is bullocks that Sun itself can't provide accessiblity features/addons to SunOffice. Sun has been big pioneer in this and I think it is clearly "if it doesn't work with Microsoft tools, it doesn't work at all" attitude we see here;
Of course, just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't matter whether or not you "buy" it -- it's a legal requirement.
This whole thing is just comical. Sun bought this sweetheart policy, various crews of open-source fanboys cheerlead for it, but heaven forbid anyone should have thought of this issue beforehand or lifted a finger to address it since. (Sneering at Groklaw idiots aside, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has solved this problem yet. Even if you don't buy into the wilder notions
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a problem. This is FUD spread by Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody else made the excellent analogy to a wheelchair ramp. You can't put up a government building and say "Five groups are working on a wheelchair ramp and one of them will get it right soon."
Anyway, that still begs the question of why this wasn't hammered out a year ago. We're talking about Sun, not a project by a couple of teenagers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To refine your analogy, it's like bringing up the wheelchair access requirement as an obstacle to zoning the land on which the government building is to sit.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you notice the part where I said "and then Mass can move to ODF"? I wasn't suggesting that Mass moves, and then hope the plugins come later. I was saying that once Mass finds an acceptable, then they'll move. If you want to go with a wheelchair ramp analogy, it's like Mass wants to build a new building, bu
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a grevious mistake to allow yourself to be tied into one option that forces all sorts of changes down the road because it was the most feasible option in the short term. The plugin will give ODF and all the rival office suites a fair crack at beating the M$ market dominance. But eve
Re: (Score:3)
There apparently is a market for having accesibility tools for ODF. Accessibility tools don't HAVE to be free, there can be a cost associated with them due to the special nature of the software.
Of course, one of the BEST things that could be done is a "well defined problem". Listing what needs to happen for people of v
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really worth trolling over spelling errors? I'm sure there are as many Brits who can't spell correctly as there are Americans and other English-speaking dialects.
Re: (Score:2)
First and foremost, I should note that I generally support this requirement. That it is law and needs to be followed is both a reality and a generally Good Thing.
Having said that...
I've worked closely w
Shouldn't the Operating System take care of this? (Score:2, Insightful)
XGL (Score:2, Interesting)
Announce and then never release... (Score:2)
screen magnifier (Score:2)
As for screen readers (Text-to-Speech), that should be part of the operating system. Though I imagine it would be far easier for a blind person to be using a simple text editor. I don't imagine they'd be using the formatting options all that much.
Re: (Score:2)
Your method doesn't increase the size of the menu options or buttons, only the typed text on the screen. That is what you are missing.
I don't imagine they'd be using the formatting options all that much.
Just because a blind person is creating the document, doesn't mean that only b
Re: (Score:2)
That is, or should be, a function of the OS.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't see how this is a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
All the more reason for the text of the document to be accessible in a format easily editable in a simple text editor, or some other application that is not the original word processor. For example, an XML format in which text can easily be edited without losing formatting and structure.
Documents saved in some kind of XML format should be quite easy to load into a specialized application for
Re: (Score:2)
I find this pretty interesting actually.
What sort of workflow does he use for editing layout? You have to admit this is a particular case of partial blindness, which is not nec
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I know of, but I certainly think it's a great idea! The closest thing I can think of is writing docs using AsciiDoc and then converting the file to DocBook and then ODF/PDF. However a console editor for doing word-processor-like things is a good idea. Emacs with the correct mode settings is probably the closest thing right now that I know of.
I think your description and comments were really interesting. I hope someone who's de
Accessability (SP?) (Score:2)
Let me explain Large Print and Speech software (Score:5, Informative)
There is no operating system that actually has speech and large print capabilities built into the core. Accessibility has always been a "bolt on" solution. In many cases, large print software and screen reading software has altered and even mangled video drivers in order to try to figure out what was being put on the screen to work with it. However, in the last few years there has been a move to incorporate the ability for third party software such as screen readers and large print software to be able to access the data in otehr apps more easily so that the text can be read by the screen readers. Unfortunately, it is still possible (and common) to run into applications that use odd ways of writing to the video cards that the large print software is unable to intercept. Therefore you will get issues such as in Microsoft Word where if you insert Word Art it is invisible when you are using large print software but visible when you disable the software.
And of course, we all hate Microsoft for being a monopoly so the adaptive technology industry is rather happy (I'm sure) that MS doesn't incorporate a useful large print and screen reader software built into the OS. Now, there is large print and speech applications built into Windows. However, they are no better than many two-bit freeware packages and are not practical for long term use if you're going to be as efficient as a sighted person at work.
Mac OS has large print and speech applications as well. However, the large print software doesn't track the typing cursor. They have had this flaw for years and seem too lazy to fix it. This makes the software nearly useless for word processing. Their screen reader leaves plenty of room for improvement as well. Unfortunately, since the move to Mac OS X there are no longer 3rd party vendors for large print and speech for the Mac (there used to be).
Hopefully that clears a few things up. Now, as for Open Office, I have been using it for a low vision user who need minimal magnification with large print software and it seems to be OK although there are some odd random artifacts that clear up. Not a great solution but it will do for that particular situation. However, screen readers and Open Office are still not where they need to be. In OO.o's dfense, they are aware of this and, I believe, working on it. Here's hoping we'll see some movement soon.
Michael Wigle
Computer Access Specialist
Cincinnati Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, OS/2 did have them (or as close to 'built into the core' as you can get in a modern OS - it was on the install media for people who could be bothered to check the box to install it). Unfortunately it didn't happen until some of the very last releases, by which time nobody was using OS/2 any more (we're talking about merlin and aurora here, and you can't even get aurora unless you know exactly whe
Why not Word's XML Format? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why not Word's XML Format? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not Word's XML Format? (Score:4, Insightful)
- Much of the information is stored in binary and enclosed in xml tags. This information is not straightforward to be written
- Why use a non-standard format when there is already a ISO-standarized one
- There are already many applications already preparated for reading/writing ODF documents that are already working on a multi-platform basis. Whilst there is only one version of a program (produced by a single company for only two plataforms). Many users did not upgrade yet (and they SHOULD PAY FOR THIS). So that should be a load of money (for MS) which makes no-sense
- the Massachussets goverment should also pay a lot of licences for that software.
So, please give us a single reason for doing such a silly thingRe: (Score:2)
This is totally false. There are no mystery blobs. Images, EPS, tables, footnotes, scripts, everything that can be expored reasonably is represented as one would expect. Try exporting a complex document from MS Word to XML format first before posting false statements and misleading people.
Why use a non-standard format when there is already a ISO-standarized one
First, what good is an ISO
Not a concession at all (Score:4, Insightful)
The original deadline was ODF at the start of 2007. The general plan was to get a suitable plugin for existing MS Office deployments to keep using the same MS licenses, but save all documents as ODF. This plugin would also be available to recipients of the documents, so that they could read documents in the new format. The original plan did not include using a different office suite, open-source or otherwise, as part of this directive (although the directive would obviously facilitate later transitions).
It looks to me like MA has outwitted MS here; MS's FUD about this directive has convinced everybody that MA is ditching MS Office, to the point where MA can make a concession where they switch to OpenOffice later than the deadline, when their original position was not to switch at all.
Now, it's possible that the new CIO is unaware that the old CIO had made the current plan originally, and actually thinks that he was supposed to get new software in place, and thinks he's missing that milestone. But, most likely, he's just making it sound that way so the disablity groups can feel victorious, when their concerns were already handled in the general goal of continuing to use existing working software deployments.
Had to be said... (Score:2)
MS Office, the choice for handicapped people everywhere!