What most people don't seem to realize is that making software accessible makes it easier to use for EVERYONE, not just the disabled.
For that matter, just writing understandable documentation makes it easier for everyone.
This whole story sounds just about completely made-up to me. I've talked with a lot of blind people who use Linux, and they all say how great it is, and how completely impossible it is to use Windows.
Why don't you try emailing the author and asking him directly? I have.
For most disabilities that affect computer use, the problem breaks down into two major parts:
Input: In this area, the only real difference between Mac, Windows, and Linux is the lack of functional voice input in Linux. Yes, I know about the various projects for voice input in Linux, but if you actually check out those projects, you discover that every one of them either has been abandoned or has not reached the point where you can reliably compile and use them. In Windows, there are aftermarket programs that give you speech input, such as Dragon. On the Mac, it's built into the desktop, and works a lot better than any of the Windows software I've tested.
Output: Functional screen readers and screen magnifiers are what is needed here. To see how they should work, just play around with any Mac running OSX 10.4 - the entire screen should be zoomable to any degree you desire, and the screen reader should be able to read even what's in popup dialog boxes. In Windows, there are programs such as JAWS, Zoomtext, and ReadPlease, all of which are very useful within their price brackets and desired functionality. In Linux, there's Gnopernicus, the KDE accessibility module, Emacspeak, Blinux, and Oralux.
I've tried Gnopernicus, and had to shut it down almost immediately because the screen reader was incomprehensible (even when compared to JAWS), and the magnifier works by splitting your screen in half and using one half to display a magnified version of the other half, which makes doing even simple text editing almost impossible because you can not see what is on the part of the desktop that is covered by the magnified image.
KDE's accessibility module is slightly better than Gnopernicus, but still not even at the level of ReadPlease. Emacspeak is ok, if you're masochistic enough to want to use Emacs for all your computing needs. I couldn't get Blinux to install on my hardware, and I just learned about Oralux today.
I'm lucky enough to not need a Braille TTY, so I can't say anything about how useful those are in Linux.
Exactly! If they want accessibility features they should compile gentoo and code it themselves. People whine about wanting FOSS to be easier to use and more accessible. Those people need to learn C/C++ and the FOSS API's's and help out. Lets move on to more pressing topics, like how we can attract more people to desktop linux!
And while they're at it, all those paraplegics should stop using wheelchairs, and all those deaf people should stop using ASL, and all those blind people should stop using white canes, eh?
Another thing I didn't like about this article was its use of the phrase "disabled people". It's about THE BLIND, so just say THE BLIND.
Not true. The examples given were blind people, but they are not the only disabled people who have problems that are not addressed.
For example, I had to drop out of a computer engineering program because I have peripheral neuropathy, and cannot type for more than 3-5 minutes at a time without developing crippling pain in my arms that lasts for 2-3 days. A voice control system, like what is in OSX, would solve my computer use problems, but Linux has exactly ZERO functional voice control projects, and even the voice dictation projects which used to exist have been abandoned or are languishing in various states of disarray - but none of them are functional.
That is why better voice activated systems, dictation, voice enabled IDEs, and more fluid voice synth and recognition are the thing we need the most. We cant afford the hardware or expensive commercial software, and even if we bought the software we would still not be free as we would be limited to the few applications that support it. But todays computer systems are fast and cheap, and could run such systems easily if they existed.
This alone would make my life infinitely better. Thanks to a nasty case of neuropathy, my ability to type is severely restricted, and even using a mouse becomes crippling after a while. Unfortunately, the only operating system with a truly functional voice control system is OSX, and until Apple realizes they can make more money selling the operating system for ALL Intel hardware and not just their own proprietary hardware, it's something I will not have the money to own.
Once upon a time, IBM made a version of Via Voice available, but that was 5 or 6 years ago, and since that was pulled, there has been nothing even remotely similar available in Linux. Every voice control system for Linux I've researched has either been abandoned by its creators, or never made it out of the proposal stage.
Even if you do not believe that each human being has the natural right to self-ownership, and thus the natural right to defend that self-ownership, in every case, the benefits of the objects in question far outweigh the actions of a few evil individuals who use examples of those objects to assist in their evil acts.
Boy, are you off base!
The US Dept. of Justice did a study (note: link is to a PDF) about 10 years ago which determined that when parents teach their children responsible use of guns, their rate of ALL crimes (not just gun crimes) was 10% lower than children raised in strictly gun-free homes, their rate of gun crimes was 0% (vs. 1% for gun-free homes), and their rate of drug use was 2% lower than children raised in gun-free homes.
First of all, did you remember to include the cost to the environment? Everything I've heard indicates that public transportation is a better choice environmentally, but I'm no expert... perhaps someone who is would care to comment?
Actually, government transportation is a net loss environmentally. Claims of environmental superiority for government transportation assume that it is always being used at capacity. In reality, the average government transportation vehicle uses less than half its capacity over its lifespan, and thus spends more than half its time burning fuel and polluting the air while driving its routes with most of its seats empty.
In addition, government transportation vehicles usually use diesel engines, which are more polluting in their mass-produced versions. Yes, I know that if you hand-tune a diesel for efficiency and emissions control, and use vegetable oil instead of petroleum for fuel, it can run cleaner than a gasoline engine, but how many government transportation vehicles have you seen that do that?
Even those vehicles which use electric power are responsible for the pollution produced by the power plants needed to provide their electricity - and since nuclear power has been effectively banned in the US for nearly 30 years, that means burning coal as the primary power source, with oil and natural gas as supplementary sources. Have you ever seen how dirty even a "clean" coal-burning power plant is?
Compare that to private vehicles, which have fuel economy and pollution controls mandated by government. They may not be the best economy and pollution control systems (anything government-specified never is), but they exist regardless. Private vehicles definitely come out ahead in fuel economy, clean air, and efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
What most people don't seem to realize is that making software accessible makes it easier to use for EVERYONE, not just the disabled. For that matter, just writing understandable documentation makes it easier for everyone.
Why don't you try emailing the author and asking him directly? I have.
For most disabilities that affect computer use, the problem breaks down into two major parts:
Input: In this area, the only real difference between Mac, Windows, and Linux is the lack of functional voice input in Linux. Yes, I know about the various projects for voice input in Linux, but if you actually check out those projects, you discover that every one of them either has been abandoned or has not reached the point where you can reliably compile and use them. In Windows, there are aftermarket programs that give you speech input, such as Dragon. On the Mac, it's built into the desktop, and works a lot better than any of the Windows software I've tested.
Output: Functional screen readers and screen magnifiers are what is needed here. To see how they should work, just play around with any Mac running OSX 10.4 - the entire screen should be zoomable to any degree you desire, and the screen reader should be able to read even what's in popup dialog boxes. In Windows, there are programs such as JAWS, Zoomtext, and ReadPlease, all of which are very useful within their price brackets and desired functionality. In Linux, there's Gnopernicus, the KDE accessibility module, Emacspeak, Blinux, and Oralux.
I've tried Gnopernicus, and had to shut it down almost immediately because the screen reader was incomprehensible (even when compared to JAWS), and the magnifier works by splitting your screen in half and using one half to display a magnified version of the other half, which makes doing even simple text editing almost impossible because you can not see what is on the part of the desktop that is covered by the magnified image.
KDE's accessibility module is slightly better than Gnopernicus, but still not even at the level of ReadPlease. Emacspeak is ok, if you're masochistic enough to want to use Emacs for all your computing needs. I couldn't get Blinux to install on my hardware, and I just learned about Oralux today.
I'm lucky enough to not need a Braille TTY, so I can't say anything about how useful those are in Linux.
So writing documentation that the average Linux user can understand isn't a priority for you? At the moment, even THAT would be an improvement.
And while they're at it, all those paraplegics should stop using wheelchairs, and all those deaf people should stop using ASL, and all those blind people should stop using white canes, eh?
Not true. The examples given were blind people, but they are not the only disabled people who have problems that are not addressed.
For example, I had to drop out of a computer engineering program because I have peripheral neuropathy, and cannot type for more than 3-5 minutes at a time without developing crippling pain in my arms that lasts for 2-3 days. A voice control system, like what is in OSX, would solve my computer use problems, but Linux has exactly ZERO functional voice control projects, and even the voice dictation projects which used to exist have been abandoned or are languishing in various states of disarray - but none of them are functional.
This alone would make my life infinitely better. Thanks to a nasty case of neuropathy, my ability to type is severely restricted, and even using a mouse becomes crippling after a while. Unfortunately, the only operating system with a truly functional voice control system is OSX, and until Apple realizes they can make more money selling the operating system for ALL Intel hardware and not just their own proprietary hardware, it's something I will not have the money to own.
Once upon a time, IBM made a version of Via Voice available, but that was 5 or 6 years ago, and since that was pulled, there has been nothing even remotely similar available in Linux. Every voice control system for Linux I've researched has either been abandoned by its creators, or never made it out of the proposal stage.
Clearly, you did not read my post - instead, you read INTO my post what you wished to read into it.
Actually, the guns they used were illegal for them to own.
For the same reason you don't ban gasoline, fire extinguishers, or commercial aircraft.
Even if you do not believe that each human being has the natural right to self-ownership, and thus the natural right to defend that self-ownership, in every case, the benefits of the objects in question far outweigh the actions of a few evil individuals who use examples of those objects to assist in their evil acts.
Boy, are you off base! The US Dept. of Justice did a study (note: link is to a PDF) about 10 years ago which determined that when parents teach their children responsible use of guns, their rate of ALL crimes (not just gun crimes) was 10% lower than children raised in strictly gun-free homes, their rate of gun crimes was 0% (vs. 1% for gun-free homes), and their rate of drug use was 2% lower than children raised in gun-free homes.
Given how active this topic has been, missing a reply was bound to happen sooner or later. Thanks for checking it out.
It was a direct response to the post I was replying to.
Yup. Repeal the 2nd Amendment, so that the biggest and most brutish among us can rule over the more civilized. Great plan, that.
First of all, did you remember to include the cost to the environment? Everything I've heard indicates that public transportation is a better choice environmentally, but I'm no expert... perhaps someone who is would care to comment?
Actually, government transportation is a net loss environmentally. Claims of environmental superiority for government transportation assume that it is always being used at capacity. In reality, the average government transportation vehicle uses less than half its capacity over its lifespan, and thus spends more than half its time burning fuel and polluting the air while driving its routes with most of its seats empty.
In addition, government transportation vehicles usually use diesel engines, which are more polluting in their mass-produced versions. Yes, I know that if you hand-tune a diesel for efficiency and emissions control, and use vegetable oil instead of petroleum for fuel, it can run cleaner than a gasoline engine, but how many government transportation vehicles have you seen that do that?
Even those vehicles which use electric power are responsible for the pollution produced by the power plants needed to provide their electricity - and since nuclear power has been effectively banned in the US for nearly 30 years, that means burning coal as the primary power source, with oil and natural gas as supplementary sources. Have you ever seen how dirty even a "clean" coal-burning power plant is?
Compare that to private vehicles, which have fuel economy and pollution controls mandated by government. They may not be the best economy and pollution control systems (anything government-specified never is), but they exist regardless. Private vehicles definitely come out ahead in fuel economy, clean air, and efficiency.