call to arms

[Bruce Dawson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bill McGonigle wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2005, at 18:06, Bruce Dawson wrote:
>> . However, he is
>> highly reliant on MS-Windows and JAWS. And for the most part, he's using
>> Windows only so he can read MS-Word files.
> As I understand it, JAWS is the most popular screenreader for Windows,
> by some margin.  Behind JAWS in popularity is Virgo, another screen
> reader, which doesn't have some of the scripting features of JAWS. 
> Gnopernicus is made by the same people as Virgo and is FLOSS, or a least
> FS such that it comes with Fedora.  Gnopernicus reportedly works fine
> with ooOffice for most users.

I've never seen Jeff use the scripting features of JAWS. It just read
most of the documents, and it had a "seamless" integration with Windows.

> The main complaint I hear about gnopernicus is that it isn't as
> featureful as JAWS and/or it's differently-featured.  As I understand it
> JAWS is based on application-specific scripts (optimizations) whereas
> Virgo/Gnopernicus take the "you shouldn't need scripts" approach and
> aren't 100% efficient at that goal to date.  And some people complain
> that using Virgo is like using a JAWS from 1999 or that the new
> text-zoomer that Microsoft came out with last week is 'way better' than
> gnopernicus, therefore gnopernicus is now unusable.

I'm not sure about Virgo/Gnopernicus because I've never used them (I
tried to use JAWS a few times to try and figure out why it wasn't
reading parts of some screens. Talk about honing one's ability to listen!)

I do know that even the "superior" JAWS has problems reading part of the
screen (regardless of what's on it - whether it was a Word file or IE).
I believe the other programs would have similar problems.

Given what I know of software, I could only guess the real problems lie
below the screen readers. And I would expect that FOSS software would
have a more difficult time reading the screens than software whose
authors have signed NDA's with MS. But these are only calculated
guesses, I haven't seen the sources of anything we're discussing.

> So, the point I'd like to understand is, roughly: Is gnopernicus somehow
> insufficient for the needs of the blind or is it just that JAWS is some
> users' personal preference?  Fundamentally, is this an accessibility
> issue or a productivity issue?  And does the ADA require accessibility
> or maximal productivity - because that's a difficult argument for JAWS
> supporters to back if gnopernicus is expected to eventually surpass JAWS
> in capability.

I believe the answer is a bit more sinister. *I* believe you're seeing
the results of a FUD flood aimed right at the legislatures. This has
been a problem that the blind community has been dealing with since
Kurzwiel came out with the reader many years ago.

Given that there are problems "below" the screen readers, I would say
that even if the resources that were poured into JAWS were poured into
gnopernicus (and JAWS and its foundation were to stand still) that
gnopernicus would run into similar roadblocks.

Of course, change the foundations from MS to Unix, and you'll find the
problem just plain and simply evaporates (at least to someone who thinks
about the issues and resources a bit). Probably not to a user who
doesn't just have a package to install.

Now, if most software architects know this, what are the architects of
JAWS and those foundations to do? (Many Software Engineers consider the
buggy nature of MS-Windows to be intractable).

Also consider that OOo.org has a perceived weak link in the lack of a
screen reader for the blind, and the legislatures are moderately
concerned with ADA compliance, and the financial resources of its
competitors allow it to make multi-million $$ feints, and that MS
believes its destiny is to control the market, industry, and anything
else it can, I think we need to deny MS this rather small "victory".

So much for the blind. I wish the world would also consider the plight
of quadriplegics. The blind can sort of read stuff now (but it *is* a
challenge). Try writing a memo in Word using a "puff-writer". (Now try
converting the 22nd word in the 14th paragraph to bold.) It is *a lot*
easier to do using a character-cell interface than it is using a GUI
(and this goes for the blind too). CLIs are sweet bliss compared to
GUI's. But we're not about to give up GUI's! (CLI's and GUI's are
opposing paradigm's, so this problem will be with us for a long time.)

The real problem is that industry is demanding its workers use MS-Word.
And the government is trying to push disabled people into the workforce
(aka industry). But this is a job that MS-Word, and its GUI-based
platform, just isn't cut out for. (Without paying additional money to
morph a hammer into a saw). OOo.org and XML are good steps in the right
direction because they allow quick and easy analysis of documents, and
provide structure to new documents. But screen readers aren't the
solution that's needed. (Except in the eyes of MS who is attempting to
divert attention away from its shortcomings).

Well, I've been on a soap box twice tonight. And on the same soap box! I
need to get back to some more immediate goals. If people wish to discuss
this further with me, I'm happy to, but lets do it off-line and maybe
over a beer. Next week.

- --Bruce
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDlO7z/TBScWXa5IgRAranAKC+ot0ykzIUDQK9Gfg13kw8HHp28gCgnKTR
ABAVfXUxAD7FBGrttTpWSQs=
=GmXR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----