Few questions about speakup

[Janina Sajka]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Charles Crawford wrote:

> 	Having said this and at the risk of incurring concerns from those who are 
> highly dedicated to Linux, I really have to point out that objective and 
> observed behavior of a program tells the story stripped of conjecture and 
> what might happen in the sweet bye and bye.
> 
> 	If there are applications running on Linux in the X environment and those 
> applications do not run on the console, then there is a reason for 
> that.  Attacking the reason is just as important in the Linux world as it 
> is in the Windows world.  Discrimination and lack of employment are just as 
> ugly irrespective of what OS is involved.
> 
> 	So, our chances are much higher in Linux to correct issues before they 
> become entrenched as they are in Windows.  If we don't aggressively move to 
> do that, then we only will have ourselves to blame for having relied upon 
> wishful thinking rather than consumer involvement to secure our futures.

Charley:

I take your point. But, you need to take the next step in your very 
excellent reasoning. You are still missing the most salient point, namely 
that's it's the license, not the OS, that makes the difference.

It rather reminds me of the 1992 Clinton campaign, where every Clinton 
office had a big sign which read:

	"It's the economy, stupid."

I will avoid the perjorative, because it's unfortunate in all versions of 
this otherwise excellent construct. So, I say again,

	"It's the license, sweetie."

Let me go to cases.

Unix has many inaccessible applications, especially in the Xwindows area. 
Motif is but one example. There are many other examples. It will, as I 
pointed out yesterday, always be possible to write inaccessible 
applications. I pointed out it is even possible to write inaccessibly for 
character based interfaces.

Yet, I don't believe you're frightened by ASCII art encumbered 
applications, right? That spectre isn't frightening because we understand 
the remedy. So, I say now, understand the remedy available to us with GPL 
licensed gui applications. It's really not much different than clearing 
out encumbering ASCII art from character screens.

The salient point is that we have both the needed information and the 
legal license to do so. This radically alters our future. No longer do we 
marshall resources to demand someone "fix it" for us. That would be a 
mos;t uninformed and unfortunate approach in the GPL arena. We would be 
looked at as uninformed and ignorant people were we to try such a silly 
approach, because the remedy for our woes is in our hands. Simply get some 
engineers on the task and fix it to our specs, on our timeframe, and to 
our liking. Then, submit the fix back into the package distribution so 
everyone can enjoy the benefits.

We have a responsibility in GPL. We cannot stand, hat in hand, asking for 
inclusion. We are required to pitch in and make it so. I can tell you that 
AFB has not learned this lesson yet. I don't know about NFB, or CNIB, or 
RNIB. But, perhaps you can help guide ACB, as I believe you have already 
begun to.
 
> > 	 Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. > > -- charlie Crawford.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

-- 
	
				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

Email: janina at afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175

Chair, Accessibility SIG
Open Electronic Book Forum (OEBF)
http://www.openebook.org