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.'"
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?
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
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.
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.
... they're saying that they won't necessarily be adopting OpenOffice.org software for their users with disabilities, instead allowing them to use plugins with MS Office.
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!
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
Why not let people who don't need accessibility use the cheap 'inaccessible' applications, and let the 5% who need accessibility use the "MS Office with a plugin" option?
You know, I really hate it when people use postal abbreviations on anything other than addresses. Reading the headline for this, I had no clue what MA was until I read the digest below. That's not a huge chore or anything, but 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. I'm willing to be flexible on stuff like this, but these postal abbreviations were never meant to be used in the context of a paragraph or even sentence of text. Imagine if it was PA... Pennsylvania? Port Authority? Palestinian Authority? Mass. is obvious. Pa. is correct for AP style and others, and Penn. is almost unmistakable in context. Am I being too pedantic?
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
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!
I think you meant "ridiculous", not "rediculous". :)
Since I saw the same question posted in amny places let me go ahead and explain it once in one place. FYI I have been teaching the blind and people with multiple disabilities how to use computers for competitive employment for nearly 10 years.
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
This suggests a lot of differences from the original plan.
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.
ODF is an ISO standard and unencumbered by patents. OpenXML is still somewhat restricted in its licensing, and it is encumbered by Microsoft patents. The only guarantee that the patents won't be used offensively is Microsoft's word (no pun intended).
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
- 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 thingAnd then you typed "cought". Ah hahahahahaha this could go on all dey :P
The ODF Plug-in is still a work in progress. The completion date is January 2007. It's worth noting that Massachusetts is now doing things with the ODF Plug-in prototype that go beyond the original RFi. For instance, an "accessibility interface" has been added. The interface simply reads through the document elements and provides the user with a pop up dialog to describe graphical objects such as pictures, graphs, tables, sub set comments, etc. These descriptives are put into the new accessibility tags as approved by the ISO OpenDocument XML Accessibility Sub Committee. There are other areas where Massachusetts RFi trials have expanded the possibilities the ODF Plug-in presents. Some of the more interesting have to do with PDF, digital signatures, and an XForms data binding - data extraction interface for MSOffice. The only way to understand what is going on in Massachusetts is to think back on the ETRM plan. The first order of the day is SOA, and everything flows from that decision. To do SOA you need open standards. And you absolutely must have XML technologies, including a portable XML document model that is universal as both an information transport and information transformation layer across desktop productivity environments, servers and devices. Massachusetts now has two choices for that portable document model - choices which they clearly didn't have when the ERTM was written. The differences between ODF and MSECMA however are considerable. If they were to choose MSECMA, that decision would drive all desktop, server and device choices to the XP-Vista-.NET system of integrated platforms. With ODF, non Microsoft products can be used at any of the three platforms. We would argue further that the ODF Plug-in offers server and device side providers the same level of integration with an MSOffice bound desktop productivity environment as MSECMA provides to the Vista system of integrated desktop to server to device platforms. ~ge~