Slashdot Mirror
OpenDocument Plans Questioned by Disabled
ComputerWorld is reporting that John Winske, president of the Disability Policy Consortium, is raising some questions about the accessibility of the OpenDocument format. From the article: "Winske, who has muscular dystrophy, said he instantly remembered how Microsoft had to be "prodded and dragged, kicking and screaming" to make its software accessible during the transition from DOS to Windows. None of the prominent desktop applications that can create and save documents in OpenDocument currently work well with screen readers, magnifiers and other assistive technologies -- at least at a level comparable to that of products from Microsoft, whose 40-person Accessibility Technology Group is now widely praised by disabilities advocates."
As was mentioned in a recent /. article, they can always use word and (soon) be able to export their documents to ODF format.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Perhaps I'm missing the boat on this one, but isn't accessibility an application issue? ODF is just a content format, and it's conceivable that one could create an app that would make is usable by blind people (as an example).
As I said, perhaps I missed the point.
The case is not closed by any means.
We have yet to see that plugin that you speak of. We don't know how well it works, assuming it even works at all. Of course, it may fail horribly when it comes to handling this special case of documents.
To suggest that this plugin will work, even without it being publically available and tested, is naive. To think it will work flawlessly when it comes to handicapped-accessible documents is just plain stupid.
It's pretty apparent that, once again, Slashdot has taken an article completely out of context.
The gentleman in the article was critisizing the State of Massachusetts decision to require ODF on the basis that ODF compatible software isn't friendly to the disabled. This has nothing to do with whether or not Word can or cannot read the format, nor about whether open formats are better than closed.
He is merely stating that making the decision based on currently available technology does not support his group. From the article:
Winske said he likes the concept of open-source technology and hopes that OpenDocument will one day be accessible. "I have no problem with it," he said. "The Mozilla Project and Firefox have proved that if people build a better mousetrap, people will use it. It's a matter of making that mousetrap accessible."
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
I recall reading some comments on this issue recently, where folks developing accessibility software to work with MS Office mentioned the need to reverse-engineer their interfaces every time MS releases a new version, 'cause the connections to that closed-source monster must be kludged and cobbled.
Now, it should be obvious to the average code monkey that doing accessibility plug-ins ONCE, with OPEN access to the source code, so they can be properly integrated with the office suite (after which one need only do updates for each new release, with the benefits of full integration and full access to the code changes), is a MUCH better option than having to kludge compatibility from a standing start with minimal integration for every release. Long term, an Open Source office suite is clearly superior for this purpose, assuming that it does its primary job well -- a condition clearly met by several FOSS office suites. With ODF in play, the situation just gets better.
Disability activists and the FOSS community are natural allies; we need only recognize this and start to act that way. Perhaps there's some FUD from a Malevolent Source involved in the publishing of this article?
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
A U.S. law requires that most software used by the U.S. Government be accessible. (http://www.section508.gov/ has the details.) A government-focused, open-source group may want to develop these capabilities, rather than expecting the disabled people themselves to do so.
Instead of complaining this group should get involved! That's what Open Source is all about: participating. Instead of whining about it they should help to make it happen.
They ARE involved. They've kicked off a dialogue and raised the awareness level of the issue of accessibility in open-sourced apps. Writing code isn't the only way to participate in the open source movement.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
OOo developers have definitely worked on accessibility. But there is still ample room for improvement. See: http://ui.openoffice.org/accessibility/
Ignorance abounds ...
It's like saying the Chevron gasoline isn't as acommodating to the disabled community as is Mobil gasoline.
Shame on us as the tech-savvy for not making a better effort to educate the average personal computer user! Too many people still have no idea how it works - they just use it, as it if worked by magic! And, actually, they don't CARE how it works! This is just one misinformed and undofrtunate soul who is determined to display his ignorance to the world. I can't see microsoft buying him off to say such things. He's just ignorant of the facts.