Lars wrote: > It would be useful to pin down the sources and specifics of the basis for > Pacheco's claims. (e.g. which disability groups and what have they been > made upset about)
The article http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/10/25/galvin_attacks_software_proposal says that blind office workers are saying they're worried they won't be able to use it. I looked into this a bit. Support for screen readers was added in OpenOffice 1.1. The page http://ui.openoffice.org/accessibility/at.html describes this support. HOWEVER: 1) That page is incomplete - it doesn't list all the screen readers people use. 2) That page is not linked from the home page of openoffice.org, it was very hard to find. 3) The accessibility bridge uses Java, and its memory requirements are very high - see http://groups.google.com/group/mailing.comp.open-office/msg/ecdd0f0087459d88 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.blind-users/msg/4a8bada1e70474b2 so many users might not be able to use it. In fact, it's said to not work very well. Has anyone on this list tested screen readers like JAWS with OpenOffice 2.0 to verify whether the complains in the two messages I linked to are still real? What are the real system requirements? Can someone find out and update http://ui.openoffice.org/accessibility/at.html ? I think the community might have to hustle a bit here to make sure blind users are *really* supported well; we can't just claim it's all bad PR. Wish I could help myself, but I'm tapped out (most of my spare cycles are going to helping the Wine project at the moment). - Dan -- Trying to get a job as a c++ developer? See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
