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.
As long as you can drink it?
As someone without a working soul, I have felt very accommodated by Microsoft's team.
From the article:
Kind of reminds me the first time I went looking for a job: We need someone with "x" years experience, sorry; But, how do I ever get those "x" years? Also, I would think these companies are suffering from the Microsoft Syndrome (it's the biggest market, therefor that's all we'll write to) and are missing an opportunity. I hope they roll the dice and buy into their own futures. What is there about entire state governments switching to Open Document Format (ODF) that sounds like "limited markets"?
Also from the fine article:
First, it's unfortunate the example set by Microsoft is what sets the stage and expectation for anyone else. OSS is not Microsoft. And, I hope OSS and ODF is given the time and opportunity to step up to accessibility issues rather than being brushed aside.As for the article's claim these documents today don't work well with screen magnifiers, etc., while I haven't done the research, I find it difficult to believe there aren't some tools out there that either are sufficient or could bridge the gap until a more mature suite of extensions and support are added to OpenOffice and others.
It seems like this group has fallen for Microsoft's repeated lies that OpenDocument == OpenOffice. Accessibility is a software issue, not a document format issue. They should be complaining that OpenOffice, KWord, AbiWord, etc aren't accessible, not that OpenDocument isn't. OpenDocument is just as accessible as .doc format now that Word has a plugin to save in OpenDocument format.
You will never please everybody. If you try, you will end up pleasing nobody. If you don't like something, then don't use it. That's the Canadian way!
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
Is this not the point of having an open format? Anyone anywhere is free to write an app or plugin - heck, build a set-top box even - that can easily handle the needs of the disabled or anyone else to use the format. As with most if not all features of anything open-source, if the need is there the solution is within reach.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I sympathize, but that's not a reason to not adopt open standards, that's a reason to develop better software. Microsoft is going to try to paint it the other way though, and I worry the press will but into that interpretation overall.
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.
This has nothing to do with OpenDocument as I can create any program that can read and write the format. In fact, if Winske was such inclined he could write a program to do this himself. Try doing that with Microsoft's format!
It's vitally important that disabled people are able to use computers. Computers allow them to connect with people in a way where they're truly equal. As a light hearted aside, a disabled guy from Romania who I met when I was there just a few months ago was able to totally own me in Unreal Tournment! To paraphrase a famous gun nut: God created man, colt^H^H^H^Htechnology made them equal.
If anything, OpenDocument will allow much more deeply integrated software for disabled folks. I think once this starts to become a reality, disabled people will really enjoy the format.
Simon
1. Wouldn't Microsoft likely implement ODF and then all their amazing accessibility stuff would be right there and ready to go? I always thought of MS as the "make ours able to open their stuff, keep changing our stuff so they can't open it, and make ours the default" crowd.
2. If they don't, I'm all for disabled rights, but there is no damn way that I should be required to pay a company to read public documents so that a blind person can have equal access WHEN THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM IS THE COMPANY'S REFUSAL TO IMPLEMENT AN OPEN STANDARD!!! Talk about rewarding the wrong behaviour.
I think you meant : "you can't hold your cake & eat it", this guy has muscular distrophy !
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Why should they be forced to use a proprietary product for a fully open standard, just because they're disabled? Shouldn't this be something that the OSS movement jumped on?
... scratch an itch, but wouldn't it be cool to actually help those, who need it - instead of just helping yourself?
None of this "prodded and dragged, kicking and screaming" crap, but just jump in to it?
I know, I know
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
I'm suprised nobody's mentioned the obvious solution to this problem. We just need to make an ODF import/export plugin for The Gimp.
This guy's the limit!
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"
...in such a twisted way it makes me wonder if Microsoft money isn't behind it somehow (perhaps in a "we'll make a sizable donation to your organization as long as you speak out against OpenDocument for us" way); OpenDocument format has nothing to do with accessibility (which is an application issue almost entirely orthogonal to document format), and it seems odd that someone would even be aware enough of the OpenDocument standardization effort without recognizing that, especially someone active in the area of accessibility.
Smells like deliberate, faux consumer-interest, FUD.
That being said, given mandates like the ADA, if people want OSS to take an bigger role on the desktop, accessibility and cooperation with assistive technology is a big area where more needs to be done. Sure, it may not be as much interest to developers, but given mandates like the ADA, it may be essential for many large decision-makers in deciding whether or not to adopt a particular solution.
instantly remembered how Microsoft had to be "prodded and dragged, kicking and screaming" to make its software accessible
That's nothing, you should see the tantrum when you try to ask them to unbundle their media player and internet browser to make that software inaccessible.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
But there are advantages for proprietary companies in having a closed format. Particularly if it is in use on 90% of the workstations out there.Yes. And that's the "problem".
If anyone can do it, then once someone does do it, there won't be much of a market for those other companies.Yep. But it doesn't generate the same revenues that proprietary products do.
So, having a universal format that is licensed is good for their profitability (provided the license isn't too expensive).
But having an Open format that is Free to anyone to write to means that their market may be replaced by a Free (as in speech, as in beer) app that does everything their current apps do, but does it better.
Example: Some blind guy wants to edit a document that was sent to him.
Right now he needs MS Office.
Two years from now, he'll run an app that doesn't even display the document. Straight from file to speech and from speech to file. The speech recognition won't be tied to the MS Word (or even OpenOffice.org). It will be a distinct app. That means less effort on the part of the programmers. And being a distinct app means that it won't be tied to variations in the word processing program that the current ones have to interact with.
Simplicity and modularity. All of a sudden, the market for apps for the blind is taken over by Open Source and Open formats.
And it spreads to other markets.
I think you meant : "you can't hold your cake & eat it", this guy has muscular distrophy !
If I had mod points, I would definitely use one here. I'm just not sure if it would be +1 or -1.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
Having read through the first 30 comments, it looks pretty clear to all that this is a misunderstanding.
However, I expect I will see more "misunderstandings" as the mighty Vista continues to gather bad press. Is this intentional misinformation? Stupid people being too noisy? A typical case of "slow news day causes unnecessary problems"?
I will suggest that all pro-open format bloggers take a half an hour to write a short post explaining the difference between application and format. I suggest writing as clearly and non-geek as possible. Remember: if it cannot be understood by those great unwashed masses, it serves no purpose besides preaching to the choir.
In my experience, in the post-Google world, the best way to combat bad information is with VOLUMES and VOLUMES of good information.
barack to the future?
Well, DUH! -- under those terms the disabled remain hostages to the market-share leader.
Saying, "We love Microsoft because they have the best assistive technology [1], and therefore oppose anything that Microsoft doesn't support" becomes a roundabout way to establish Microsoft as a de jure monopoly. In the logical extreme, laws like the ADA give Microsoft the power of law by the use of its human shields in the disabled community.
And, yes, those are horribly mixed metaphors. Sue me.
Now that Microsoft has turned lack of assistive technology into a powerful weapon against having to compete on the merits, would anyone care to guess how long it will be before MS offers platform support for assistive technology? Get used to the plantation, folk, cause'n yo suit Massah jes' fine wheah yo is.
[1] Well, actually it isn't theirs. But we tend to overlook that part and give them credit anyway.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
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.
/. has always been a bit self centered re: open source but you have to have at least a tad of empathy for those of us who CAN'T write code. A recently diagnosed major medical issue left me with a right hand which no longer works, vision which is deteriorating rapidly, and an over-whelming need to research the poor medical advice which led to the mis-diagnosos that could have saved me 4 years of un-necessary pain
and treatment which complicated the issue.
I have bad-mouthed XP since it's inception but have, Now, come to appreciate MS's handicap accessibility options which are allowing me to utilize GOOGLE to do the research necessary to find REAL answers. Even going so far as to have MS read the page to me when I simply can't do it myself
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It simply wastes your time and truely annoys the pig"
Their complaint is not about the document specification, it is about the fact that the major software that supports the OpenDocument formats does not have adequate accessibility. If major markets, like state governments, are going to switch to a certain format then disabled people have every right to voice their complaints.
/.ers will be bashing on Microsoft again for their supposed lack of innovation and good products by the end of the day.
I find it funny that many people seem to be pointing at the fact that Microsoft Office will have an ODF plugin and that those disabled people should just use that. This only affirms the fact that Microsoft Office is a superior product to all of its competitors, or at least the open source ones supporting OpenDocument. I am sure all the
That view is frustratingly short-sighted. Microsoft Office is a tool developed for people with no disabilities; accessibility will never be a primary consideration. Using Microsoft Office with a screen reader or a magnifier is at best a crutch.
Much better interaction styles are possible for the disabled. In the past, they haven't been commercially viable because Microsoft Office formats have dominated the market With open document formats, there would finally be new companies entering the market with high quality tools specifically for people with disability.
Let's not even dwell on the fact that the disabled have experienced first hand how frustrating it is to be at the mercy of Microsoft; do you really think that other groups aren't equally frustrated with Microsoft's predominance but lack the lobbying power to get Microsoft to hire a 40 person crew to address their needs? And what happens with the next paradigm shift? GUIs will have transparency, high resolution visualization, and other features, and it will take many years for accessibility tools to catch up--do you want to continue to be at the mercy of a single company to meet your needs in perpetuity?
Adoption of open document formats is a huge win for the disabled, without any downside. You can even continue to use Microsoft Word, since there will be plug-ins. But you may want to work with the OOo people to improve accessibility there. And you will see ODF apps aimed at people with disabilities soon after the format becomes reasonably widely adopted. Please, don't screw this one up, for your own sake and the sake of everybody else.
He is doing something by complaining and lobbying. Nothing will happen if no one speaks up. Besides, not everyone has the skills to write accessibility plug-ins as you would seem to suggest.
What the [censored] is wrong with lobbying about the lack of a feature (even if it is a bit misguided to complain about a document format, rather than a reader)? How the [censored] do you expect software developers to come up with neat things (like, say for instance, a nice way for OpenOffice etc. to work with screen writers) if people don't mention the fact, that it is missing? Ask the magic 8 ball?
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
And the code that does this, and AsTeR, which is a package that speaks LaTeX (including complicated formulas) was done by T.V. Raman, who is blind himself, and has been using and developing open source code for quite some time.
There may be an emacs mode already done for OpenDoc format, perhaps someone who follows emacs more closely can say.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
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.
Actually I knew a blind guy once who programmed just fine, using a Braille terminal and some sort of very basic text editor. Just like any other programmer using a text shell, except the output was through the braille terminal instead of a VDT. IIRC he had some sort of non-QWERTY keyboard also, but I never inquired as to how it worked.
He always maintained that screen-readers were a huge step down, and were being pushed onto sight-impaired people because they were a lot cheaper than full-size (40 or 80 column) Braille terminals.
When you think about it, basically any command-line application is much better suited to use by a sight-imparied person than a GUIed app, because it can be more easily transformed into a serial data stream (which can be read or felt linearly). So really, Linux ought to be the platform of choice for accessibility, since you can use it in so many more ways: if you don't want to use a GUI, no GUI for you. You don't ever have to use a graphical control panel to change a system setting, check email, even search the internet, etc.
(Unless of course people send you raster PDFs as email attachments, but not like a screenreader is really going to help you much with those, either.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The guy's got MS. You're suggesting he's supposed to start programming? With what? Your magical new voice-to-C interface????
And paraplegics should build their own ramps, right?
Holy crap.
MJC
Yes, the article is (properly) critquing the applications that currently support ODF, but it is still (improperly) casting that as a shortcoming of ODF itself. It's like saying that "gif images" are somehow flawed because of limitations in Microsoft Photo Editor or Photoshop.
The whole point to having a well documented, open FORMAT, is that any APPLICATION (proprietary, open, free, expensive, shoddy, polished, whatever) can implement that format and interoperate with all other applications that do so, and be guaranteed to be able to continue to interoperate for as long as they want.
Yes, MS Office is still in many ways a superior product to "alternative" office software, but it's (currently) superior accessibility features have no (zero!) relation to the fitness of the ODF format, postscript, PDF, plain text, or any other format. What _does_ have an effect is that MS likes to make it's formats labyrinthine and preferably legally encumbered, which means that if you save all your data in an MS format, you tend to be limited to using MS applications (for as long as they let you) to access that data. With a well specified international STANDARD FORMAT like ODF now is, consumers (disabled or not) get to choose whatever applications they want.
The point to people pointing at the MS Office plugin is really that adding support for a new format is not difficult to do. If we want the features of MS Office it's an argument that MS needs to add native support for _all_ current international office document standards to Office, not that somehow those standards are defective because MS refuses to use them. Note that Office still doesn't have native PDF (another international standard in common use) support either.
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.
Blame ComputerWorld, Carol Silva, and Slashdot for poor headline writing. Wincke says, in the very last paragraph of the article, that he has *NO* problem with FOSS or ODF. His complaint is that the third party accessibility tools don't support {Open|Star}Office. So, in otherwords, Wincke would have no problem at all with ODF *as long as it was supported by Microsoft* whose Office applications are supported by third party products.
A suspicious person would suspect that the Microsoft PR department fed ComputerWorld and Ms. Silva a deliberately misleading article about ODF in order to inacurrately frame the issue, but I'm sure nothing like that would ever occur to a fine, public spirited company like Microsoft.
Handling for text readers, magnifiers, etc. is ... not something you build into the file format itself.
Unless you want difficult words, foreign words, trademarks, homophonic words, etc. in the document to be properly pronounced when it is read aloud.
Seriously. There are better ways.
Pretend it was the other way around. Word processors had no GUI. They just talked to you, and you were supposed to talk to them. Then, being deaf and mute, you got some "assistive technology" that would do voice recognition on this so that it could display text for you. Your "assistive technology" crap provides a button bar, so you can click on a button to save a file. When you do so, the button press plays an audio file saying "computer menu file save" into the word processor.
Wouldn't that be stupid? Screen readers for the blind are just as bad.
The appropriate solution is a word processor made for the blind. It probably wouldn't have a GUI at all. It would probably reveal document structure more directly, as a tree to be navigated.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz