In Open Source and You, Ron Goldman points out:
No one would buy a car with the hood welded shut, but that is essentially what commercial software is.
I’ve never thought about it quite like that before, but that would be about right. 
The rest of the article is well worth the read if you want a non-techie explanation of open source software and its value.
Via Steve Lee on the oats-sig list.
Morning: Notice that someone has reported a bug against the Orca screen reader. (It seems that Orca is not properly announcing the name of a combo box in the sound-juicer media player. In addition the combo box is not in the Tab order.) Confirm the problem and provide additional information which will help those troubleshooting.
Lunch time: Decide you want to troubleshoot yourself. Grab a copy of sound-juicer’s source code. Identify where things have broken. Attempt to fix the code yourself. Verify that you can now Tab to the combo box and that Orca is now reading the combo box’s name. Attach your proposed patch to the bug for others to examine.
Mid-afternoon: Participate in discussion related to how Orca should best handle such situations on its end. Try the improved version of your patch proposed by Sun’s Rich Burridge and confirm that it works. Bow humbly** to Rich’s three decades’ worth of computer industry experience.
Late afternoon: Notice that Rich has transferred the bug, along with the patch which fixes the sound-juicer problem, to the sound-juicer guys for their consideration. Marvel at the turn-around time between the identification of an accessibility problem and the implementation of a fix in the mainstream product in which the problem lies. Smile at the fact that the entire process took place in the open so that anyone interested in the problem could participate in developing its solution. Consider that this is what “open communication and the shaping of accessible technology” is actually all about.
** This sounds much more sarcastic than it is. Rich is a veritable wealth of information, and he is more than happy to share what he knows. Much of what I am able to do today as a “participant” is a direct result of his ongoing, patient tutelage. Thanks Rich!!
I don’t know about you, but I tend to ignore press releases and similar such creatures: Credibility issues aside, the substance-to-fluff ratio is just too low. Every once in a while, however, you do come across one of substance — often it’s unintended substance (remember FS’ HumanWare Trade-In announcement two weeks after they acquired Jonathan Mosen?), but it’s substance nonetheless.
Today’s semi-substantive PR offering comes from GW Micro, which begins:
A milestone has been set in the assistive technology industry. Today, Ai Squared, developer of ZoomText screen magnification software and GW Micro, developer of Window-Eyes screen reading software announced that both applications could be installed and run together at the same time on the new Windows Vista operating system, providing never-before-seen access to a new operating system for blind and visually impaired consumers.
For those outside of the assistive technology field, many would ask, “Why is this such a great accomplishment?” For years, there have been difficulties trying to make new Windows operating systems accessible to visually impaired consumers due to problems and compatibility issues. However today, for the first time ever, two assistive technology companies collaborated to make sure that these types of problems are a thing of the past for blind and visually impaired consumers.
I’ll grant you that this is a milestone. That said, for those inside the assistive technology field, many would ask, “What took you so long?” Why did it take well over a decade for two companies who are not even in direct competition with one another to reach the conclusion the community would best be served by collaborating?
Perhaps I’m being cynical, but I suspect that the motivation was not the end user who needs to be able to use both a screen reader and a screen magnifier. Nor do I think that this move was inspired by the Assistive Technology specialists who over the years have had to become registry hackers extraordinaire in order to get multiple access products merely to co-exist (let alone run) on a single machine. No, as has oft been said, the first law of nature is self preservation, and it’s probably only a matter of time before we see a Window-Eyes/ZoomText trade-in program….
If the end users were truly at the center of the commercial AT universe, these companies — and their competition — would implement support for mainstream open source products because free solutions are of tremendous benefit to the user. They would work together to further reduce the problems associated with access via display driver interception — or, better still, work with Microsoft to eliminate the need for this sort of hacking chaining — because that, too, would greatly benefit the user.
As an aside, you’ve not lived until you have had a teacher or a parent call you up literally in tears because they installed JAWS/MAGic/ZoomText/Window-Eyes, and now their only computer — which they desperately need — no longer works. At all. But in the spirit of accentuating the positive, after it happens a few dozen times, you can walk folks reassuringly through the fixes in your sleep. One of the myriad joys of Linux/UNIX is that no one ever says “DCM” to (or shouts it at) you. But I digress. Where was I? Ah, yes, the press release:
GW Micro recently made history by distributing a version of Window-Eyes available to all blind consumers that would work under Windows Vista on the same day that Vista shipped to the general public. “This is the first time ever in the history of computers that a full-fledged screen reader is available to work on a new Windows operating system on the same day that it ships,” said Doug Geoffray, Vice President of Product Development for GW Micro. “A blind or visually impaired consumer could go down to their local electronics store, buy a computer, and have access to it on the same day Vista came out, just like their sighted counterparts. This is absolutely ground-breaking!”
And the fact that it is indeed absolutely ground-breaking after all these years is absolutely sad, but kudos to GW Micro all the same.
I suppose it would be superfluous to suggest how absolutely ground-breaking it would be for a blind or visually impaired consumer to be able to use the free OpenOffice.org suite just like their sighted counterparts do.
Ai Squared and GW Micro both agree that their cooperative efforts will improve the lives of millions of blind and visually impaired people around the globe.
If you take those millions and eliminate
how many are left?
Is it any wonder that there are so many presentations on ODF and Open Source Solutions at CSUN?
I was just glancing over the list of General Sessions for the upcoming CSUN conference. OpenDocument Format and open source solutions are certainly well-represented this year:
*Disclosure: I am one of the co-presenters in this session.
There are at least two additional presentations addressing the barriers posed by the high cost of commercial assistive technology products, including:
(The fact that “low cost” and “under $1500″ are used synonymously speaks volumes, doesn’t it? )
Should be an excellent conference for folks interested in finding ways to bridge the “digital divide.”
Sun’s first Corporate Social Responsibility Report was published yesterday. The report highlights — and rightfully so — Sun’s contributions in the area of access to information and technology for people with disabilities. Weighing in at 36 pages, the report highlights a number of other things as well. Fortunately, Peter Korn has quoted the accessibility-related section for the time-impaired.
In his entry Peter also makes the comment:
Working on accessibility is often a lot of hard, less-than-pleasurable work. A lot of it is convincing other engineers that they have to change how they do things (after first painstaking tracking down bugs and misbehaviors in other folks’ code). [....]
I had to chuckle. I probably shouldn’t admit this, but guess how I spent my weekend — and a few evenings last week. It certainly wasn’t easy work, yet the entire time I kept thinking how absolutely wonderful it is to be able to track down issues and to talk to the engineers who can fix them. It’s turning into a hobby of mine, actually. In no small part my enjoyment comes from having spent a decade on the outside, unable to look in — forced to be a consumer rather than a contributor. I have the added luxury that no one gets cranky at me because I have no impact on shipping deadlines.
In all seriousness though, I cannot tell you how many times I’ve come across an accessibility regression in the Windows environment and have been powerless to do anything about it. I mean, where do you even begin? It would be nice to know where the breakage occurred, but you have no way of knowing: All there is are vague symptoms. On a good day you can at least narrow it down to the product which is at fault, but you’re not always that lucky. So there is pretty much only one option left: complain. But to whom? At least the manufacturers of the assistive technology products can be reached. In the mainstream world you have to send off an email to some generic support address and hope that someone somewhere takes some notice, and that at some point somebody will do something about the problem — all the while suspecting that you’d have a better shot at winning the lottery. Winning the lottery wouldn’t be such a bad thing to attempt either, because in all likelihood the only way you’re going to get the fix — should a fix be made — is by purchasing a software upgrade.
In a perfect world, accessibility issues would not exist. And admittedly there are things I’d rather be doing than reading source code and ChangeLogs and trying to track down where something broke and/or could be improved. But the fact that I, a mere mortal user, have access to that code and can track such things down and can communicate directly with the engineers pleases me to no end. Open source solutions enable you to shape and refine the tools you need yourself. It may at times be hard work, but it is incredibly empowering work.
The thing that strikes me most about accessibility in the “participation age,” however, is the collaborative spirit of the community. Six months ago, I didn’t know what a ChangeLog was or where to get source code, let alone how make sense of either. The direction and encouragement of other community members enabled me to do these things for myself; I in turn do what I can to enable others. The personal growth of individuals within the community is valued – not just for the contributions that will result from the growth, but for the growth itself. A theme running throughout Sun’s report is that enabling participation does not merely bring about economic value, but social value as well. ‘Tis true, ’tis true: The end result of participating is not merely the development of the tools that you need, but the personal development and satisfaction derived along the way.
In the spirit of openness, Rich Burridge (with my full support) has decided to move a conversation he and I were having into the open.
The conversation had started out innocently enough around the redesign of an Orca feature, but it eventually led to a bit of a rant on my part. What was I ranting about (this time) you ask? Lack of user participation.
You see, once in a blue moon you come across something that seems too good to be true, but actually isn’t: There really are free operating systems (Linux and Open Solaris), there really is a free office suite (OpenOffice.org), and there really is a free screen reader (Orca) which shows the potential of rivaling its $1000 commercial equivalents.
But it doesn’t end there; on the contrary: At the risk of repeating myself, the Orca team is actively soliciting user input and basing their design upon the feedback they receive. There have been times (I’m starting to lose track of how many) where I’ve filled an RFE suggesting that “such-and-such feature would be helpful for the end user” and the response has been “okay” — often it’s not “okay, thanks for the suggestion, we’ll take it under advisement”, but “okay, we’ve implemented it, please give it a try and see if it meets your needs.” If it can be easily and reasonably done, Will, Rich, and Mike do it; if it cannot, they start looking for what it will take to pull it off the needed functionality. In other words, there is a free operating system, a free office suite, and a free screen reader whose design we can contribute to so that it best suits our needs. All we have to do is participate.
Yet people are not participating. That is what I was ranting to Rich about.
Of course, I am exaggerating a bit (as friends, colleagues, and regular readers of All About Access know all too well that I am wont to do) — but only a bit. Some people are participating. Some people are sharing their needs and wants with the Orca team. Most, however, are not. Why is that?
Rich had some thoughts on that matter:
Why this is all strange to the blind users who are now trying out Orca is that they are so used to paying a large sum of money to a commercial organization and dealing with the way that support is handled in such a company, that they don’t realize that alternatives exist.
Used to “dealing with the way that support is handled in such a (commercial) company”: check. “Don’t realize that alternatives exist”: check. “Used to paying a large sum of money”: I don’t think so. The average blind user doesn’t pay a large sum of money for their screen reader. The average blind user is provided with their screen reader through their local school district, vocational rehabilitation agency, employer, charitable organization, etc. It’s like medical care: Some of us pay large sums of money because we do not have health insurance; some of us pay large sums of money because we need a screen reader but for one reason or another can not obtain funding. But in both cases, that is not the majority of the respective populations. Far from it. Most of us are provided with what we need — or we do without.
So why am I nitpicking on this one point when Rich’s observations are, on the whole, spot on? Because I think the medical model of rehabilitation services is largely to blame for the limited participation of persons with disabilities in open source communities.
If everyone really were used to paying large sums of money for their screen reader, I think they’d be beating down the proverbial door to check out, and contribute to the development of, Orca. And that would be good for everyone who cares about affordable assistive technology for computer users who are blind. Does that mean I think we should immediately dump the model we currently use for providing assistive technology services? No, not any more than I think we should immediately dump the model we currently use for providing health care services. In either case, such a drastic measure would put far too many folks in a position more unsatisfactory than the status quo.
So what then do we do? To be honest, I’m not sure.
All I can think of doing is what I’m already doing, namely making people aware of the free, open source alternatives to the commercial products they currently use — or would use if they could afford to do so — and encouraging them to participate.
I also hope that as more and more members of the Independent Living community become aware of free, open source solutions for computer users with disabilities, we’ll see a significant increase in participation. After all, the FOSS movement has a lot in common with the IL movement.
I’m certainly open to other suggestions.
I just found out about the OATS project.
OATSoft is dedicated to improving Assistive Technology and computer accessibility through the power of Open Source development techniques. OATSoft makes the best Open Source Assistive Technology Software or OATS easy to find and install. Users and developers are meeting at OATSoft to create better OATS.
It is wonderful to see yet another instance of the assistive technology and open source communities coming together. Through such collaborative efforts, universal design stops being a mere ideal and starts becoming a reality. I definitely want to get involved with the OATS project!
I learned about OATS via Henrik Omma, dubbed Ubuntu’s “Mr. Accessibility,” who blogged about yesterday’s project launch in London. He gives a good overview of where things seem to be and links to some comments and advice he gave the project: all quite good and worth reading. But there’s one thing Henrik said that especially struck me:
As an Open Source enthusiast I’m happy that this project has chosen open source as the vehicle by which to achieve (”better computer access”). But at the same time I acknowledge the fact that for most disabled computer users (and other computer users) the open-sourceness of their tools is not the key factor. I think we should keep in mind that the quality of the result is more important than the license used for those who end up using it.
I agree 100% that the quality of the result is most important and that the license, in and of itself, is irrelevant in the minds of most users. However, while the open-sourceness of the tools is not the key factor today, I do think that will change.
Open source solutions facilitate a move away from the medical model of assistive technology service provision — a model which for so very many reasons is unsatisfactory. Thanks to open source solutions, the user can finally cease being a passive recipient of AT, instead taking on the far more empowering roles of true consumer and active participant. As more and more users with disabilities see all that open source has to offer — far more than mere products! — the open-sourceness of the tools will indeed be a key factor if not the key factor.
The license still won’t matter though. 
Technorati Tags: open source, OATS, FOSS, FLOSS, assistive technology