Slashdot Mirror


MA To Adopt Short-Term Plug-in Strategy for ODF

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.'"

16 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Accessibility of ODF by Noksagt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To the best of my knowledge, OO.o works well with all accessibility aids that work across all programs in the operating system. It is true that there are a few applications which only work with Microsoft Office (and, particularly, only work with Word), but it is my impression that those tools are in the minority. However, where are the holes? Why can't the disabled use some of these other applications (just as other workers are being asked to use StarOffice or OO.o instead of MS Office)?

    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?

  2. Delayed rollout by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article stated that the delay was based in part on the fact that the major open source solutions for odf like OpenOffice do not yet support magnifiers and screen readers needed by people with disabilities. I wonder how long it will take for those functions to become a part of the open source office suites out there? Just a question. I am really hoping Mass will roll out open source office software and prove that it is indeed as robust and useful as Microsoft office. Like that isn't the general attitude around here.

    --
    My humor is probably your flamebait
    1. Re:Delayed rollout by archen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why are screen magnifiers a part of an office suite anyway? This should be done by the Operating system (windowing system or whatever). You just make the application more complicated and do a piss poor job of really overcomming the problem. For instance you magnify the office suite text, then cut and paste it somewhere else but then have problems reading it because the magnifacation ONLY works for the office suite.

      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.

    2. Re:Delayed rollout by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder how long it will take for those functions to become a part of the open source office suites out there?

      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.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Delayed rollout by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why are screen magnifiers a part of an office suite anyway?

      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 random bitmap, so that controls have a logical tab order (instead of order the programmer chose). Nothing important can be hidden in graphics. And so forth. Although screen readers will handle applications without accessibility in mind, they may not do so well.

      Try using a screen reader on Solitaire for example. You'll probably get it to read the menus, and tell you when you're about to choose "Deal" or "Undo". You won't get it to read the cards. Solitaire (assuming for argument we want it to be accessible) should have hidden static-text controls on the cards, treat each card as a separate button or other standard UI control, have a keyboard shortcut for deal and then transfer focus onto the dealt card, etc.

      This is the same matter as gracefully-degrading CSS. Although some programs will happily convert all your text to images, and many will do a formidable job of arranging everything in tables, it doesn't impress a disabled user one bit unless the underlying structure is that of a reasonable page (headings, paragraphs, real A HREF links, etc.) and all the fanciness is controlled by CSS. This is what Massachusetts is worried about: whether OOo gracefully degrades to a screen reader.

    4. Re:Delayed rollout by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I wonder how long it will take for those functions to become a part of the open source office suites out there?

      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?

  3. Doesnt matter in the long run. by Jahz · · Score: 4, Interesting
    But the only office applications that could do that -- such as the open-source OpenOffice and Sun Microsystems Inc.'s StarOffice -- are not fully supported by the major screen readers and magnifiers that people with disabilities use.

    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"
    --
    There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
    1. Re:Doesnt matter in the long run. by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was under the impression that screen magnifiers magnified the screen regardless of which application was being shown on the screen. I also thought that screen readers read text on the screen, regardless of the application displaying the text. If they are application specific, I have been very misinformed. I also think that if this is the case, these applications (screen readers and magnifiers) are complete crap, and not worth a cent, and we should abolish them all, and start over with some tools that provide accessibility for all applications.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  4. Is thas a backdoor MS move? by macurmudgeon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While the concept of accessibility is incredibly important, JAWS, the most used screen reader is totally tied to Microsoft products. Did Microsoft come back through the back door with accessibility to derail the Open Format initiative?

    On the other hand, maybe this will give some impetus for Open Office to get into bed with the accessibility people.

  5. Re:So if I read it right, then... by Jahz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    True, but remember this is a phased rollout. The ODF plug-ins should be limited to people with disabilities. In the private sector I really would'nt care, however as a resident of MA, I think differently. You and I both know that VERY few people will switch to OO.org if MS Office is allowed to stay. I want Office removed from the default install of MA government machines. Maybe just give excel, etc to people who REALLY need it. That software is expensive, and the costs for ten or hundreds of thousands of site-licensed machines is enourmous. MA is a cash strapped right now. That money is better spent fixing their collapsing tunnel system.

    --
    There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
  6. Accessibility FUD by Pecisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is clear pro-Microsoft move. I just don't buy accessibility argument for few reasons, mentioned bellow:
    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

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  7. Re:Postal abbreviations by Soft · · Score: 3, Interesting
    the fact remains that it would have been much clearer from the beginning if they had just abbreviaed it Mass., which is the normally accepted abbreviation.

    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.

  8. XGL by Korin43 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Make a bigger switch and go all the way to Linux. XGL has a zoom-in function built in, so you don't need it in the program.

  9. Re:So if I read it right, then... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and the costs for ten or hundreds of thousands of site-licensed machines is enourmous

    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 just don't think state governments (and especially MY state government) should be the trailblazer. That thundering hoard you see is droves of people leaving MA (the only state in the union to suffer a decrease in population in the last two censuses) because of things like the Big Dig, and other callosally mismanaged debacles riddled with patronage, schedule slips, and massive budget overruns at the taxpayer's expense.

    I also can't seem to shake the suspicion that this is mostly politically motivated. Recall that MA was the last state to withdraw from the MS monopoly penalty phase. That stubborness also ended up costing taxpayers millions, with nothing to show for it. Why do I think (as a lifelong MA resident) this is really more about revenge than it is about making things better?

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
  10. Re:So if I read it right, then... by ray-auch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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-sighted) people with OOo, and hold back their licences for new people who do need MS Office.


    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 cost of multiple may well outweigh any MS licence savings).

    Plus, using both MS and OO ODF implementations at the same time is likely to expose compatibility problems (see eg. this comment http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=194602&c id=15948385 on another article today). The last people you want to be inflicting compatibility problems on are your disabled user base - they have enough problems without also being relegated to an applications platform subtly different to everyone else's.

  11. Re:Mighty high horse you've got there. by Alef · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not sure to what extent it matters to you, but one other reason not to use "begs the question" instead of "raises the question" is that you'll come off as someone who tries to sound smarter than s/he really is, if the reader is familiar with the original meaning of the idiom. Pretentious of them? Perhaps. But I often find it hard myself to avoid instinctively thinking "idiot" at some subconscious level whenever I encounter similar errors. And then you'll have a much harder time trying to convince your opponents of your point.

    Disclaimer: My own slashdot posts are probably riddled with similar errors, since english isn't my native language.