Re: Here it is...Ubuntu Phone
Yes, you can have the eloquence voices on Linux systems. There are packages built for Debian&Ubuntu, and I know that people have it working on other distros as well, probably from the same tarballs, but don't remember for sure. Try googling Voxin or oralux. (I may have the spelling wrong on that last one) Anyway, the same ibmtts that is used by eloquence and ibmviavoice is used by voxin. It's refferred to as ibmtts in speechdispatcher configuration files. The voices cost $5 per language. They work with both speechdispatcher and emacspeak speech servers. There's a special installation package that configures your system to be able to use the voices with emacspeak that is updated as new releases of Debian and Ubuntu come out. I have used the Spanish voices as espeak doesn't sound good at all with Spanish. I'm tired/not looking for urls nor writing very well right now, but write me off list and I can hook you up with more information if you have any trouble finding these voices. Orca, and speakup for that matter have nothing to do with Ubuntu, or at least no more is Ubuntu responsible for their development than is Microsoft responsible for NVDA, Jaws or any other windows screen-reader. I will say that Orca's only been around for about a third of the time that jaws and window-eyes have more or less. NVDA does for sure give a better experience in most cases than does Orca, but if you are willing to do a fair amount of your computing on the command line I find that you can make up for some of the shortcomings with GUI accessibility in Linux. Any conparisons are OT for this thread anyway, and really OT for this list, so I'll just leave it there except for saying that I think most of us are glad to see improvements in access for any and all platforms. I certainly want to have as many options as possible. I for one do %95 of my computing on Linux, but I wish it were more practical for me to use Linux for that other %5, and I wish I was more efficient for some tasks I do under Linux that I could sometimes do faster on a windows machine. Regards, -- B.H. On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 09:51:11PM +0200, Aidan Maher wrote: > Wel, I am stil learning this thing, but I don't see how I can get away > from windows, I mean we don't even have elliquence in linux systems, > neither half of the functions jaws can offer, but very true that > ubuntu is a great system and I agree with all said that it must be > taken much more seriously. I just think that many people should not be > blamed if they stil use windows as there are reasons for that. A > balance is always helthy. > > On 05/01/2013, B. Henry wrote: > > > > Terrible! I am appauled reading that your msg was marked spam. > > Sadly, your friends and you are in the majority of blind computer users in > > deciding that Windows meets their needs better than current Linux realeases > > due to the lack of major progress of a > There is no doubt that as far as web-browsing goes NVDA/firefox gives a > > muuch better experience on most web-pages than does any > > browser with Linux screenreading options. I'd go as far as to say that > > NVDA/firefox is the gold standard for accessible web-browsing. There's also > > no doubt that web-browsers are if not the most important programs on most > > computers they are one of the most used and most indespensible pieces of > > software for the majority of users. This is close to as true for blind users > > as it is for the population in general, and I think that I'm not alone when > > I say that it is very hard to continue to be pasient waiting on an > > acceptable level of web-browser accessibility. The ball is not in Ubuntu's > > court in general here, but as is said below at the very least it is > > important to fast track the inclusion of latest accessibility software in to > > Ubuntu. > > I think I'm correct in saying that it's a scramble to get the LTS releases > > minimally accessible when first deamed ready for production use. When major > > accessibility bugs are still not fixed when the LTS comes out of beta this > > says to me that Canical needs to dedicate more resources to making Ubuntu > > usable by blind users. > > I'd like to see mid-term Ubuntu releases have a similar level of > > accessibility to that now acheived with the LTSs, and resolvable > > accessibility issues dealt with issues treated as critical for all > > long-term-support Ubuntu releases. > > Especially with a mobile Ubuntu option top line accessibility seems like it > > could even make good business sense. Apple has captured a much larger share > > of the blind-mobile-user market than they'd have if other platforms offered > > similar levels of out of the box accessibility. (I hope that latest android > > has acheived comparible accessibility to ios, but do not have devices to > > compare to know if this is the case or not.) > > Anyway, it'll be an uphill battle for Ubuntu to catch up in mobile space, so > > why not try and do
Re: Campaign for Ubuntu Accessibility [was "Re: Here it is...Ubuntu Phone"]
Well, for better or worse, "out of sight, out of mind", seems to be standard human behavior. Hopefully a firm but gentle reminder about accessibility will be enough to get an honest reaction from Canonical, but there's always the chance of yet another fight on any given day; and a garanty of more fights ahead in general. -- B.H. I did think it was on a Ubuntu blog that I saw folks writing about the need to have accessibility baked in from the get go, not added on as a patch to otherwise more or less mature software. Maybe it was just some posts on this list that I'm remembering. Anyway, no matter who you are dealing withyou do need to get in to the habit of being diplomatic unless you know the person very well if you want positive results. Catching more flies with honey than vinegar and all that you know... And yes, Canonical wouldn't get a mainstream tech writer's attention by having a distro that is rated the most accessible Linux ever nearly as fast as they will by having a unity that not only works, but looks good. Getting the toe in the door of the computer novice who's tired of Windows and doesn't hve the money for a mac isn't very likely if things don't look very good, and while there's money to be made from blind users there will likely be less of them than the fed up with Windows crowd. So, as Christopher was saying, not innovating and trying to get in to mobile space so that more resources can be thrown at accessibility just isn't an option. The same goes re unity. Maybe gnome will get it's head out of the sand, but from most of what I've read sticking with stock gnome as the Ubuntu desktop has become a non-starter. Even if the Gnome-team was more responsive to what the average user and or the potential new Linux user wanted Ubuntu needed a look that'd separate it from other distros to break out of the limited box it was? is? in, or at least this was core thinking. The only way to go is to do what was planned and is being done, plus dedicate more towards accessibility. The only way to do so effectively I think is to have accessibility given the same importance as all other core functions starting from the beginning of design and planning. Considering all the major changes going on under the Ubuntu hood I'm far less concerned about not having good accessibility with the mid-term releases than I am about a mobile platform that's not accessible from day one. This is not only true for me as an end user, but also it'd be true if I were thinking of Canonical's potential profitability. I am certainly a bit concerned about the idea of accessibility being once again in the position of having to play catch-up, but don't know enough about technical details of what all is going on now and over the next year+ with Ubuntu to know exactly where to place my concern. At least by writing this you have me and probably several others interested in getting to the bottom of Ubuntu accessibility plans, and yes, making sure that Mr. Shuttleworth and crew remember that blind folks are real people/real market share. On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 08:07:10AM -0600, Nolan Darilek wrote: > All valid points, and while I agree in spirit, I'm not sure that I > have the patience or tact to worry about things like PR or > perception. Are they necessary? Perhaps, but my hope is that we > don't have to keep fighting these same fights from square one each > time a new platform emerges. After nearly 3.5 years I feel like I > can finally back off of Android a bit; we have decent web > accessibility and the ability to do text review, and things are > steadily improving. I've been asking myself for the past few days if > I'm ready to start this fight from scratch again, and if sentiment > is that I can't call out Canonical for being shiny in its pursuit of > Unity and other pretty tech while having an accessibility team of > 1-2, then the answer likely is no. I don't have it in me to do a few > more years of time only to have the next shiny hotness surface in > 2016 and be just as inaccessible. > > So yeah, maybe I'm the silly one for emailing this list and saying > that I'm not the right person for this. But whether or not I take up > the cause, it is one that needs to be taken up. Ubuntu and Linux > have succeeded all the more because for-profit companies like > Canonical and Redhat advance the state of the art. For them to do so > and not prioritize accessibility is irresponsible stewardship at > best, and it saddens me to look to non-free operating systems > because those *have* to be more accessible to keep government or > educational contracts. I'd hope that free software in general, and a > company that builds Linux for human beings in particular, would > strive to improve accessibility without having the threat of > contract compliance hanging over their heads. > > > On 01/05/2013 07:13 AM, Christopher Chaltain wrote: > >Below, you mention that Canonical is throwing resources
Re: Here it is...Ubuntu Phone
The spam system is completely automated and Akismet has been known to mark quite a large number of false positives, so having a comment of any kind marked by Akismet as spam is not at all uncommon. Having said this, I'm not sure where the perception comes in that non-free operating systems provide a better accessibility experience, or how that perception will help further our cause. I have been using GNOME+Orca+free GNU/Linux operating systems exclusively since 2009, and I can't say that my experience with accessibility has been even close to unfavorable, and it has improved quite rapidly just over the past year, since I now have a level of access to qt applications that I never even dreamed possible just 2 years ago, and that level of qt accessibility far surpasses the level of qt accessibility on Apple computers and devices, not to mention the fact that Firefox can't be made to work with VoiceOver on a Mac, which is a state I find extremely sad, albeit typical, from a company who continually receives the highest praise for its lackluster accessibility performance. On the Microsoft side, accessibility is also taking backsteps, as Windows 8 is a nightmare, and is in fact seen by many Windows users, as a complete joke as relating to accessibility, as well as many other aspects of the OS. Does Canonical need to devote more resources to the expansion of the accessibility team and the improvement of the accessibility stac? Absolutely. Does accessibility need to be a primary concern for any OS or desktop or smart phone environment? No question. But the best way to make it known that this is a requirement is not by telling developers and companies that it's sad that their competitor does abc better when in fact, their competitor has bigger problems with xyz. Rather, the best way to raise awareness of what we need in an accessibility stack and a team of developers working on it is simply letting them know that accessibility is a major requirement for any OS or interface, letting them know what improvements are needed that would help us to be able to use the OS or interface better, and contributing to development of the codebase if possible, which is something that can *never* happen on a non-free operating system where even error reports fall on deaf ears. ~Kyle http://kyle.tk/ -- "Kyle? ... She calls her cake, Kyle?" Out of This World, season 2 episode 21 - "The Amazing Evie" -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
Re: Here it is...Ubuntu Phone
Terrible! I am appauled reading that your msg was marked spam. Sadly, your friends and you are in the majority of blind computer users in deciding that Windows meets their needs better than current Linux realeases due to the lack of major progress of a > So if you wish to see Ubuntu accessibility improved, here area some > > blog posts you might wish to comment on. > > > > Here is Mark Shuttleworth's post on goals for 2013, not wishing to > > leave anyone behind, and striving to be relevant to the types of > > computing everyone wants to do. It's silly for a company like > > Canonical to state that they don't wish to leave anyone behind in > > 2013 when the next guaranteed accessible release will be in 2014. > > Similarly, it's silly for Canonical to want to be relevant to all > > types of computing, while telling blind users and others that we > > cannot have the latest At-SPI or ATK releases for our browsers. I am > > a developer. I need the latest accessibility infrastructure so I can > > develop accessible websites, and I struggle to do so as my browser > > fails to render some sites accessibly. When I used Ubuntu 11.04, I > > found that I had less access in Firefox than I do under 12.10, > > possibly because I wasn't using the latest AT-SPI. I'm finding that > > Windows 7 is more relevant to my needs as a blind web developer than > > is Ubuntu because Firefox under NVDA is more accessible than is > > Firefox under Ubuntu: > > > > http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1221/comment-page-1#comment-400356 > > > > Unfortunately, I wrote a nice and diplomatic comment only to have > > Akismet decide that my sentiments were spam. I returned to the post > > a few days later to find a message to that effect, and now there is > > no record of my comment at all. It's sad when you expend so much > > effort on being diplomatic and respectful only for some automated > > system to decide that your sentiments are spam and that they should > > be removed. > > > > Here is Jono's announcement of Ubuntu for Phones: > > > > http://www.jonobacon.org/2013/01/02/announcing-ubuntu-for-phones/ > > > > My comment there appears to still be around, but I find that under > > Ubuntu 12.10 I cannot arrow down the list of comments. Focus appears > > to bounce to the top. That isn't Canonical's fault I'm certain, but > > one would hope that a distribution that is changing so much about > > how we use our computers could afford to hire enough of an > > accessibility team to work on these types of issues. > > > > If people want to work on this then I'm happy to help. Quite > > honestly, I'm burning out on accessibility. I've used and have > > developed for Android since 1.6, when the accessibility situation > > there was barely tolerable, and even today I'm trying so hard to > > contribute to the Android accessibility ecosystem and am being > > snubbed by Google. I don't know what it is about accessibility and > > open source culture that makes it so hard for people to contribute. > > My girlfriend has CP, and she too wishes she could use Ubuntu but > > doesn't because of accessibility issues. I'm almost to the point of > > replacing my Ubuntu system with Windows just because I'm tired of > > battling with these access issues. I have a lot of respect for > > Canonical's small access team, but if Canonical just wishes to stick > > its head in the sand again and again, to throw a bunch of resources > > at shiny things while ignoring the disabled, then it will quickly > > become apparent that Linux for Human Beings *really* means Linux for > > Completely Able-bodied Human Beings. I understand that other > > distributions may not be accessible either, but that is no excuse > > for Canonical, Redhat, etc. to simply stand aside and let Linux > > become less accessibly relevant than Windows. It's sad that I enjoy > > using my VirtualBox Windows 7 install more than I do Ubuntu for many > > tasks, and is sad when accessibility developers ask me why I don't > > just abandon Linux for the far more accessible Windows., > > > > On 01/04/2013 09:06 PM, Robert Cole wrote: > > >Hello, Burt. > > > > > >Your e-mail was accidentally sent to me, but not to the list. I am > > >forwarding your message to the list. I hope that this is alright. > > > > > >Kind regards. > > > > > >Take care. > > > > > >On 01/04/2013 07:00 PM, B. Henry wrote: > > >>Well, I certainly am behind, and if the opportunity presents > > >>itself alongside of those who would like to see an effort made > > >>to make all Ubuntu releases as accessible as is reasonably > > >>possible. The big word is of course reasonably. > > >>I am someone who wants things to work for me and those with > > >>similar and other limitations when it's practical. Personally > > >>I'm not that unhappy with using LTS releases, but enjoyed using > > >>Maverick on several machines and I'm writing to you from the > > >>version of Vinux based on Natty, so I'm certainly not one who'd > > >>never use a mi
Re: Campaign for Ubuntu Accessibility [was "Re: Here it is...Ubuntu Phone"]
> Very good point. I am not sure that "shiny things" reffed mobile Ubuntu, and > my first thought was not this; but even if a spiffier more polished graphical > experience was what was being talked about your take is still valid. > There are probably some less than ideal moves being made at Canonical, but at > least if and until someone in a position of power says that the choice was or > is being made to prioritize some bell or whistle over accessibility it is > both counter productive and unnecesarily antagonistic to include the "shiny > things" bit in an otherwise good and important message. > Regards, > -- > B.H. > > > On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 07:13:04AM -0600, Christopher Chaltain wrote: > > Below, you mention that Canonical is throwing resources at shiny > > things. I'm not sure if you're referring to Ubuntu for the phone as > > a shiny thing or not, but if you are or that's what you're implying > > then I'd suggest refraining from that in your push to get more > > resources committed to Ubuntu's accessibility. Shiny things in this > > context refer to frivolous waste of times, and I don't think > > Canonical trying to get Ubuntu into the phone space is a shiny thing > > in this sense. Remember, Canonical is a privately owned company that > > is still trying to become profitable. Having Ubuntu run on more and > > more platforms, phones, TV's, tablets, netbooks, laptops, desktops, > > servers, clouds and so on is part of the strategy to create enough > > revenue streams for Canonical to become profitable. Note that I > > don't know that Canonical is actively working to have Ubuntu run on > > all of those platforms or not; I'm just basing this assumption on > > public comments from Canonical. > > > > I think you make a lot of good points below, and I think this is a > > laudable effort, I just don't think you serve your goals by implying > > that something as significant as having Ubuntu run on smart phones > > is somehow frivolous or trivial. > > > > Note I also changed the subject line since this discussion seems to > > be much broader than just the Ubuntu Phone OS announcement. > > > > On 01/04/2013 10:50 PM, Nolan Darilek wrote: > > >Here is Jono's announcement of Ubuntu for Phones: > > > > > >http://www.jonobacon.org/2013/01/02/announcing-ubuntu-for-phones/ > > > > > >My comment there appears to still be around, but I find that under > > >Ubuntu 12.10 I cannot arrow down the list of comments. Focus appears to > > >bounce to the top. That isn't Canonical's fault I'm certain, but one > > >would hope that a distribution that is changing so much about how we use > > >our computers could afford to hire enough of an accessibility team to > > >work on these types of issues. > > > > > >If people want to work on this then I'm happy to help. Quite honestly, > > >I'm burning out on accessibility. I've used and have developed for > > >Android since 1.6, when the accessibility situation there was barely > > >tolerable, and even today I'm trying so hard to contribute to the > > >Android accessibility ecosystem and am being snubbed by Google. I don't > > >know what it is about accessibility and open source culture that makes > > >it so hard for people to contribute. My girlfriend has CP, and she too > > >wishes she could use Ubuntu but doesn't because of accessibility issues. > > >I'm almost to the point of replacing my Ubuntu system with Windows just > > >because I'm tired of battling with these access issues. I have a lot of > > >respect for Canonical's small access team, but if Canonical just wishes > > >to stick its head in the sand again and again, to throw a bunch of > > >resources at shiny things while ignoring the disabled, then it will > > >quickly become apparent that Linux for Human Beings *really* means Linux > > >for Completely Able-bodied Human Beings. I understand that other > > >distributions may not be accessible either, but that is no excuse for > > >Canonical, Redhat, etc. to simply stand aside and let Linux become less > > >accessibly relevant than Windows. It's sad that I enjoy using my > > >VirtualBox Windows 7 install more than I do Ubuntu for many tasks, and > > >is sad when accessibility developers ask me why I don't just abandon > > >Linux for the far more accessible Windows., > > > > -- > > Christopher (CJ) > > chaltain at Gmail > > > > -- > > Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list > > Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
Re: Campaign for Ubuntu Accessibility [was "Re: Here it is...Ubuntu Phone"]
Don't interpret my single post as representing the sentiment of this list or the blindness community as a hole. I think to be successful, you'll have to worry about PR and perception though, and my only advice is that you'll have more success if you don't trivialize the work or significance of Unity and Ubuntu Phone. That's just my opinion and advice, and it's up to you whether you take it or not. On 01/05/2013 08:07 AM, Nolan Darilek wrote: All valid points, and while I agree in spirit, I'm not sure that I have the patience or tact to worry about things like PR or perception. Are they necessary? Perhaps, but my hope is that we don't have to keep fighting these same fights from square one each time a new platform emerges. After nearly 3.5 years I feel like I can finally back off of Android a bit; we have decent web accessibility and the ability to do text review, and things are steadily improving. I've been asking myself for the past few days if I'm ready to start this fight from scratch again, and if sentiment is that I can't call out Canonical for being shiny in its pursuit of Unity and other pretty tech while having an accessibility team of 1-2, then the answer likely is no. I don't have it in me to do a few more years of time only to have the next shiny hotness surface in 2016 and be just as inaccessible. So yeah, maybe I'm the silly one for emailing this list and saying that I'm not the right person for this. But whether or not I take up the cause, it is one that needs to be taken up. Ubuntu and Linux have succeeded all the more because for-profit companies like Canonical and Redhat advance the state of the art. For them to do so and not prioritize accessibility is irresponsible stewardship at best, and it saddens me to look to non-free operating systems because those *have* to be more accessible to keep government or educational contracts. I'd hope that free software in general, and a company that builds Linux for human beings in particular, would strive to improve accessibility without having the threat of contract compliance hanging over their heads. On 01/05/2013 07:13 AM, Christopher Chaltain wrote: Below, you mention that Canonical is throwing resources at shiny things. I'm not sure if you're referring to Ubuntu for the phone as a shiny thing or not, but if you are or that's what you're implying then I'd suggest refraining from that in your push to get more resources committed to Ubuntu's accessibility. Shiny things in this context refer to frivolous waste of times, and I don't think Canonical trying to get Ubuntu into the phone space is a shiny thing in this sense. Remember, Canonical is a privately owned company that is still trying to become profitable. Having Ubuntu run on more and more platforms, phones, TV's, tablets, netbooks, laptops, desktops, servers, clouds and so on is part of the strategy to create enough revenue streams for Canonical to become profitable. Note that I don't know that Canonical is actively working to have Ubuntu run on all of those platforms or not; I'm just basing this assumption on public comments from Canonical. I think you make a lot of good points below, and I think this is a laudable effort, I just don't think you serve your goals by implying that something as significant as having Ubuntu run on smart phones is somehow frivolous or trivial. Note I also changed the subject line since this discussion seems to be much broader than just the Ubuntu Phone OS announcement. On 01/04/2013 10:50 PM, Nolan Darilek wrote: Here is Jono's announcement of Ubuntu for Phones: http://www.jonobacon.org/2013/01/02/announcing-ubuntu-for-phones/ My comment there appears to still be around, but I find that under Ubuntu 12.10 I cannot arrow down the list of comments. Focus appears to bounce to the top. That isn't Canonical's fault I'm certain, but one would hope that a distribution that is changing so much about how we use our computers could afford to hire enough of an accessibility team to work on these types of issues. If people want to work on this then I'm happy to help. Quite honestly, I'm burning out on accessibility. I've used and have developed for Android since 1.6, when the accessibility situation there was barely tolerable, and even today I'm trying so hard to contribute to the Android accessibility ecosystem and am being snubbed by Google. I don't know what it is about accessibility and open source culture that makes it so hard for people to contribute. My girlfriend has CP, and she too wishes she could use Ubuntu but doesn't because of accessibility issues. I'm almost to the point of replacing my Ubuntu system with Windows just because I'm tired of battling with these access issues. I have a lot of respect for Canonical's small access team, but if Canonical just wishes to stick its head in the sand again and again, to throw a bunch of resources at shiny things while ignoring the disabled, then it will quickly become apparent that Linux for Human Being
Re: Campaign for Ubuntu Accessibility [was "Re: Here it is...Ubuntu Phone"]
All valid points, and while I agree in spirit, I'm not sure that I have the patience or tact to worry about things like PR or perception. Are they necessary? Perhaps, but my hope is that we don't have to keep fighting these same fights from square one each time a new platform emerges. After nearly 3.5 years I feel like I can finally back off of Android a bit; we have decent web accessibility and the ability to do text review, and things are steadily improving. I've been asking myself for the past few days if I'm ready to start this fight from scratch again, and if sentiment is that I can't call out Canonical for being shiny in its pursuit of Unity and other pretty tech while having an accessibility team of 1-2, then the answer likely is no. I don't have it in me to do a few more years of time only to have the next shiny hotness surface in 2016 and be just as inaccessible. So yeah, maybe I'm the silly one for emailing this list and saying that I'm not the right person for this. But whether or not I take up the cause, it is one that needs to be taken up. Ubuntu and Linux have succeeded all the more because for-profit companies like Canonical and Redhat advance the state of the art. For them to do so and not prioritize accessibility is irresponsible stewardship at best, and it saddens me to look to non-free operating systems because those *have* to be more accessible to keep government or educational contracts. I'd hope that free software in general, and a company that builds Linux for human beings in particular, would strive to improve accessibility without having the threat of contract compliance hanging over their heads. On 01/05/2013 07:13 AM, Christopher Chaltain wrote: Below, you mention that Canonical is throwing resources at shiny things. I'm not sure if you're referring to Ubuntu for the phone as a shiny thing or not, but if you are or that's what you're implying then I'd suggest refraining from that in your push to get more resources committed to Ubuntu's accessibility. Shiny things in this context refer to frivolous waste of times, and I don't think Canonical trying to get Ubuntu into the phone space is a shiny thing in this sense. Remember, Canonical is a privately owned company that is still trying to become profitable. Having Ubuntu run on more and more platforms, phones, TV's, tablets, netbooks, laptops, desktops, servers, clouds and so on is part of the strategy to create enough revenue streams for Canonical to become profitable. Note that I don't know that Canonical is actively working to have Ubuntu run on all of those platforms or not; I'm just basing this assumption on public comments from Canonical. I think you make a lot of good points below, and I think this is a laudable effort, I just don't think you serve your goals by implying that something as significant as having Ubuntu run on smart phones is somehow frivolous or trivial. Note I also changed the subject line since this discussion seems to be much broader than just the Ubuntu Phone OS announcement. On 01/04/2013 10:50 PM, Nolan Darilek wrote: Here is Jono's announcement of Ubuntu for Phones: http://www.jonobacon.org/2013/01/02/announcing-ubuntu-for-phones/ My comment there appears to still be around, but I find that under Ubuntu 12.10 I cannot arrow down the list of comments. Focus appears to bounce to the top. That isn't Canonical's fault I'm certain, but one would hope that a distribution that is changing so much about how we use our computers could afford to hire enough of an accessibility team to work on these types of issues. If people want to work on this then I'm happy to help. Quite honestly, I'm burning out on accessibility. I've used and have developed for Android since 1.6, when the accessibility situation there was barely tolerable, and even today I'm trying so hard to contribute to the Android accessibility ecosystem and am being snubbed by Google. I don't know what it is about accessibility and open source culture that makes it so hard for people to contribute. My girlfriend has CP, and she too wishes she could use Ubuntu but doesn't because of accessibility issues. I'm almost to the point of replacing my Ubuntu system with Windows just because I'm tired of battling with these access issues. I have a lot of respect for Canonical's small access team, but if Canonical just wishes to stick its head in the sand again and again, to throw a bunch of resources at shiny things while ignoring the disabled, then it will quickly become apparent that Linux for Human Beings *really* means Linux for Completely Able-bodied Human Beings. I understand that other distributions may not be accessible either, but that is no excuse for Canonical, Redhat, etc. to simply stand aside and let Linux become less accessibly relevant than Windows. It's sad that I enjoy using my VirtualBox Windows 7 install more than I do Ubuntu for many tasks, and is sad when accessibility developers ask me wh
Campaign for Ubuntu Accessibility [was "Re: Here it is...Ubuntu Phone"]
Below, you mention that Canonical is throwing resources at shiny things. I'm not sure if you're referring to Ubuntu for the phone as a shiny thing or not, but if you are or that's what you're implying then I'd suggest refraining from that in your push to get more resources committed to Ubuntu's accessibility. Shiny things in this context refer to frivolous waste of times, and I don't think Canonical trying to get Ubuntu into the phone space is a shiny thing in this sense. Remember, Canonical is a privately owned company that is still trying to become profitable. Having Ubuntu run on more and more platforms, phones, TV's, tablets, netbooks, laptops, desktops, servers, clouds and so on is part of the strategy to create enough revenue streams for Canonical to become profitable. Note that I don't know that Canonical is actively working to have Ubuntu run on all of those platforms or not; I'm just basing this assumption on public comments from Canonical. I think you make a lot of good points below, and I think this is a laudable effort, I just don't think you serve your goals by implying that something as significant as having Ubuntu run on smart phones is somehow frivolous or trivial. Note I also changed the subject line since this discussion seems to be much broader than just the Ubuntu Phone OS announcement. On 01/04/2013 10:50 PM, Nolan Darilek wrote: Here is Jono's announcement of Ubuntu for Phones: http://www.jonobacon.org/2013/01/02/announcing-ubuntu-for-phones/ My comment there appears to still be around, but I find that under Ubuntu 12.10 I cannot arrow down the list of comments. Focus appears to bounce to the top. That isn't Canonical's fault I'm certain, but one would hope that a distribution that is changing so much about how we use our computers could afford to hire enough of an accessibility team to work on these types of issues. If people want to work on this then I'm happy to help. Quite honestly, I'm burning out on accessibility. I've used and have developed for Android since 1.6, when the accessibility situation there was barely tolerable, and even today I'm trying so hard to contribute to the Android accessibility ecosystem and am being snubbed by Google. I don't know what it is about accessibility and open source culture that makes it so hard for people to contribute. My girlfriend has CP, and she too wishes she could use Ubuntu but doesn't because of accessibility issues. I'm almost to the point of replacing my Ubuntu system with Windows just because I'm tired of battling with these access issues. I have a lot of respect for Canonical's small access team, but if Canonical just wishes to stick its head in the sand again and again, to throw a bunch of resources at shiny things while ignoring the disabled, then it will quickly become apparent that Linux for Human Beings *really* means Linux for Completely Able-bodied Human Beings. I understand that other distributions may not be accessible either, but that is no excuse for Canonical, Redhat, etc. to simply stand aside and let Linux become less accessibly relevant than Windows. It's sad that I enjoy using my VirtualBox Windows 7 install more than I do Ubuntu for many tasks, and is sad when accessibility developers ask me why I don't just abandon Linux for the far more accessible Windows., -- Christopher (CJ) chaltain at Gmail -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
Re: Here it is...Ubuntu Phone
Hello Nolan, The first article you have linked to has pings and comments disabled. Maybe it is why your comment was rejected. I have looked up a secretary email at the contact page of marks blog and send my comment there in case it will be looked into. Jonos article sounds verry exciting but really I have not been able to find a relevant info regarding accessibility on this developing platform so I am afraid no one cares yet. I have added my comment into the Jonos article as well. BTW I am on Arch linux with Gnome 3.6.2 and I also have that issue with comment section. It appears to be bouncing to the top of iframe all the time while using arrow keys. Thanks for the good initiative Greetings Peter On 05.01.2013 05:50, Nolan Darilek wrote: So if you wish to see Ubuntu accessibility improved, here are some blog posts you might wish to comment on. Here is Mark Shuttleworth's post on goals for 2013, not wishing to leave anyone behind, and striving to be relevant to the types of computing everyone wants to do. It's silly for a company like Canonical to state that they don't wish to leave anyone behind in 2013 when the next guaranteed accessible release will be in 2014. Similarly, it's silly for Canonical to want to be relevant to all types of computing, while telling blind users and others that we cannot have the latest At-SPI or ATK releases for our browsers. I am a developer. I need the latest accessibility infrastructure so I can develop accessible websites, and I struggle to do so as my browser fails to render some sites accessibly. When I used Ubuntu 11.04, I found that I had less access in Firefox than I do under 12.10, possibly because I wasn't using the latest AT-SPI. I'm finding that Windows 7 is more relevant to my needs as a blind web developer than is Ubuntu because Firefox under NVDA is more accessible than is Firefox under Ubuntu: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1221/comment-page-1#comment-400356 Unfortunately, I wrote a nice and diplomatic comment only to have Akismet decide that my sentiments were spam. I returned to the post a few days later to find a message to that effect, and now there is no record of my comment at all. It's sad when you expend so much effort on being diplomatic and respectful only for some automated system to decide that your sentiments are spam and that they should be removed. Here is Jono's announcement of Ubuntu for Phones: http://www.jonobacon.org/2013/01/02/announcing-ubuntu-for-phones/ My comment there appears to still be around, but I find that under Ubuntu 12.10 I cannot arrow down the list of comments. Focus appears to bounce to the top. That isn't Canonical's fault I'm certain, but one would hope that a distribution that is changing so much about how we use our computers could afford to hire enough of an accessibility team to work on these types of issues. If people want to work on this then I'm happy to help. Quite honestly, I'm burning out on accessibility. I've used and have developed for Android since 1.6, when the accessibility situation there was barely tolerable, and even today I'm trying so hard to contribute to the Android accessibility ecosystem and am being snubbed by Google. I don't know what it is about accessibility and open source culture that makes it so hard for people to contribute. My girlfriend has CP, and she too wishes she could use Ubuntu but doesn't because of accessibility issues. I'm almost to the point of replacing my Ubuntu system with Windows just because I'm tired of battling with these access issues. I have a lot of respect for Canonical's small access team, but if Canonical just wishes to stick its head in the sand again and again, to throw a bunch of resources at shiny things while ignoring the disabled, then it will quickly become apparent that Linux for Human Beings *really* means Linux for Completely Able-bodied Human Beings. I understand that other distributions may not be accessible either, but that is no excuse for Canonical, Redhat, etc. to simply stand aside and let Linux become less accessibly relevant than Windows. It's sad that I enjoy using my VirtualBox Windows 7 install more than I do Ubuntu for many tasks, and is sad when accessibility developers ask me why I don't just abandon Linux for the far more accessible Windows., On 01/04/2013 09:06 PM, Robert Cole wrote: Hello, Burt. Your e-mail was accidentally sent to me, but not to the list. I am forwarding your message to the list. I hope that this is alright. Kind regards. Take care. On 01/04/2013 07:00 PM, B. Henry wrote: Well, I certainly am behind, and if the opportunity presents itself alongside of those who would like to see an effort made to make all Ubuntu releases as accessible as is reasonably possible. The big word is of course reasonably. I am someone who wants things to work for me and those with similar and other limitations when it's practical. Personally I
