[nfbcs] Linux kernel Patch for Speakup

[John G. Heim]

Irrelevant.

On 03/03/14 09:58, Mike Freeman wrote:
> Hey! He's not being paid to program the kernel!
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of John G. Heim
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:45 AM
> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
> Cc: Jim Barbour
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Linux kernel Patch for Speakup
>
> Okay, if you're going to call the code "really, really messy", then would
> you please explain to me what the code should do instead?
>
> That, of course, is a loaded question. The reason is that while everybody
> agrees that the way speakup deals with the serial port is wrong, nobody
> seems to know what the right way would be. So I'd like you to tell me, jim,
> what would be the right way to talk at boot time to a speech synth connected
> to the serial port.
>
>   From my conversations with people on the linux kernel developers list, it
> appears there is a standard for how to *not* talk to the serial port at boot
> time but no standard for how to do it. If there is a standard for that, none
> of the code I've seen uses it. I'd love to have someone point me to a piece
> of linux kernel code that does it the right way.
>
>    On 03/03/14 00:20, Jim Barbour wrote:
>> So, keep in mind that the program we're talking about here is speakup;
> which is a screen reader for Linux.
>>
>> This really isn't about retrofitting bolted on accessibility, it's about
> who owns doing some really messy kernel programming to make speakup work
> really early in the linux boot process.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 10:40:32PM -0600, Larry Wayland wrote:
>>> Jim, you are right about the retro fixing part. It's never easy to
>>> retro fit and that never works like it should anyway.  But! If they
>>> had written in the accessibility  while the program was on the
>>> drawing board it would not have been near as difficult and would have
>>> worked much better. I think we are losing ground on educating the
> developers and this is a real shame.
>>> We also need to be educating the companies who are developing the
>>> development tools.
>>> Larry
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Jim
>>> Barbour
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 8:02 PM
>>> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
>>> Subject: [nfbcs] Linux kernel Patch for Speakup
>>>
>>> John, I looked at your request to kernelhub and I'm surprised at your
>>> characterization of "they just don't get it."  I think we you mean is
>>> "they're not going to fix my problem, and it's anoying me."
>>>
>>> It's true that they aren't jumping on this, but they are letting you
>>> know what the challenges are and what will need to be done to fix the
>>> patch.  Of course it's difficult, if it were easy it would have been done
> already.
>>>
>>> For interested parties, the request is here...
>>>
>>> http://www.kernelhub.org/?p=2&msg=27537
>>>
>>> To simplfy and summarize the thread, early in the linux boot process,
>>> speakup is trying to get access to the first serial port so that it
>>> can send speech to it.  The original code is a bit buggy, resulting
>>> in the boot process hanging when speakup tries to gain control of the
>>> serial port. John is asking that this bug be fixed.
>>>
>>> The kernel folks are saying that the entire method that speakup is
>>> using to gain access to the serial port is completely dead and should be
> rewritten.
>>> The problem is that there isn't a good, existing service for speakup
>>> to talk to.  The only real solution is the rather significant heavy
>>> lifting of rewriting speakup to basically turn itself into a serial
>>> console without benefit of a kernal's serial layer.
>>>
>>> I think this is the problem with putting things like speakup into the
>>> kernel at all without a clear indication that some entity is willing
>>> to provide long term support.  The code needs to be rewritten.  John
>>> is a user of the technology and doesn't want to do the work.  The
>>> kernel developers have no resources or insentive to fix it, and
>>> there's no real product support group for speakup.
>>>
>>> I'd be curous to hear others opinions on this.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:06:46PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
>>>> I've been struggling to get a patch into the linux kernel that makes
>>> hardware speech synthesizers work at boot time. Some of the kernel
>>> developers don't get what the big deal is. But would they release a
>>> version of the operating system that didn't have video at boot time?
>>> Imagine an operating system where the users had to wait until the
>>> computer started up and then type a command to get the monitor to work.
> That would be insane.
>>> Nobody would say they had to put it out that way because it would
>>> take too long to fix. It just wouldn't be considered to be done until
>>> that problem was addressed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Jim Barbour wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <note> I'm starting a new thread about this topic because frankly I
>>> don't know if what I'm about to say applies to new versions of MS
>>> office.  I truly don't know if MS is innovating their user interfaces
>>> or if they're just being lazy, and would like for *that* conversation
>>> to take place on the other thread.
>>>>> </note>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was having a similar discussion about innovation with Tim Elder
>>>>> this
>>> weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is my rather strong opinion that allowing innovation does,
>>>>> pretty
>>> much by definition, require that we allow new ideas to grow and
>>> flourish before accessibility can be brought into the picture.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say that this applies to most areas of broad usability
>>> requirements such as Internationalization, localization, varying
>>> color palettes, ergonomic menu placement, etc., etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> My favorite example of innovation that would have been stopped cold
>>>>> by
>>> accessibility standards is the whole AJAX/web 2.0 model that Google
>>> introduced with their gmail product in 2004.
>>>>>
>>>>> Google could not have released gmail in 2004 if they had been
>>>>> required
>>> to make it accessible.  They couldn't have, even if they'd wanted to.
>>> The technology needed to make AJAX accessible, what we now call the
>>> ARIA roles, hadn't been invented yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> What basically had to happen was a rather long set of conversations
>>> amongst web browser developers, screen reader developers, and web app
>>> developers to figure out how to communicate the necessary information
>>> through the necessary channels so that screen readers could get the
>>> right information at the right time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Within the general web usability community, AJAX/web 2.0 is pretty
>>>>> much
>>> the big step for web apps becoming truly user friendly web apps,
>>> rather than clunky, text based, app like web pages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, it's pretty easy to argue that AJAX/web 2.0 was a very
>>> necessary usability step for the general user community,  that the
>>> blind were (sometimes still are) hurt by this usability improvement,
>>> and that screen reading technology has to catch up.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is pretty much the same dynamic that we've seen over and over
>>> again.  When DOS become windows 3.0, UNIX started using X-windows and
>>> session managers, phones switched from keypads to touch screens, and
>>> probably a few examples I missed.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, where is the point at which a webapp stops being experimental
>>>>> and
>>> starts being an entity that is expected to provide reasonable
>>> accomodations for disabled users?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it when you have to acknowledge license agreement or terms of
>>>>> service
>>> page?  Is it when you are expected to give them a credit card number?
>>> Is it when the site is made available to the general public, as
>>> apposed to a limited beta? I can argue for and against each of those
> suggestions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do know that the Department of Justice is wrestling with this
>>> question, along with other questions about how does a web site
>>> provider know for sure that they've made their website accessible.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure that however the rules come down, they're going to
>>> seriously hamper webapp providers and in turn give us relief from
>>> much of the inaccessible web content we as blind people have to deal
>>> with on a very regular basis.  I hope we keep both sides of this in
>>> mind when the DOJ developes, releases, and begins enforcing these
> regulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, I'm hoping we can figure out a way to go after
>>>>> Google,
>>> facebook, United airlines, and the US government to get their web
>>> sites more accessible; without also harassing tech startups,
>>> non-profits, and my high cusin who just put up a really cool
>>> visualization tool for how he and his friends listen to music.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take Care All,
>>>>>
>>>>> JIm
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:26:25PM -0600, Gary Wunder wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Mike:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps one of the things we need to address is whether or not
>>>>>> making things screen reader compatible truly does limit innovation.
>>>>>> Is screen reader technology so far behind state-of-the-art
>>>>>> technology that this is the case, or are we talking about the
>>>>>> failure to add a few lines of code in this new technology that
>>>>>> makes it play well with the assistive technology we need? I lack
>>>>>> the expertise to answer this question, but it seems to me to be
>>>>>> all important. We go to Congress each year with the message that
>>>>>> accessibility is easy and doable. I have never heard the software
>>>>>> companies argue to the contrary. What I do often hear from
>>>>>> software developers is that it is too costly to go back and modify
>>>>>> their legacy code but that new development will certainly
>>>>>> incorporate accessibility. Only recently have I heard the idea
>>>>>> that demanding accessibility threatens innovation. Can someone
>>>>>> with some expertise in state-of-the-art coding and
>>>>>> state-of-the-art screen reader technology set me straight. It
>>>>>> seems to me that this argument, if true, changes where we need to
>>>>>> place our emphasis. If it is false, it needs to be revealed as
>>>>>> such. If it is true, then we need to place
>>> more emphasis on bringing the screen readers into the second decade
>>> of the twenty-first century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike
>>>>>> Freeman
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:00 AM
>>>>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I confess that I am beginning to think we're running up against
>>>>>> something we ought to be familiar with, being Federationists, but
>>>>>> that we don't want to face. That "something" is that we, the
>>>>>> blind, are a minority. This is something we're going to come up
>>>>>> against more and more as the general universe seeks bling more
>>>>>> than
>>> information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I confess that I'm beginning to suspect that unless and/or until
>>>>>> we come up with *absolutely* iron-clad legislation that, in
>>>>>> effect, limits what software vendors are allowed to do to those
>>>>>> things wherein we can guarantee accessibility -- in effect,
>>>>>> limiting innovation  -- something which I obviously know won't
>>>>>> happen -- we're going to be behind the eight ball even with
>>>>>> vendors who claim to
>>> put accessibility first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think more and more we will find ourselves forced to old,
>>>>>> tried-and-true but much-forgotten and much-maligned strategies --
>>>>>> such as -- gasp -- use of readers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe Deborah Kent-Stein and I talked about this a while back
>>>>>> and *she* thinks we'll eventually have to come round to a
>>>>>> TapTapSee-like app that allows us to point a camera at
>>>>>> indecipherable screens and have someone tell us what's going on. I
>>>>>> don't think even that would work as corporations would frown on
>>>>>> their networks being used for such things and might balk at the
>>> possibilities of theft of corporate secrets or intellectual property.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Freeman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Gary
>>>>>> Wunder
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 7:09 AM
>>>>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still respectfully suggest that we put Microsoft on the agenda
>>>>>> and try to find out why accessibility always seems to be at the
>>>>>> bottom of their priority list. Did screen reader developers have a
>>>>>> look at this before it came on the market? Why is it that we were
>>>>>> still wrestling with problems in Outlook 2007 when Outlook 2010
>>>>>> hit the market? Is there any kind of consistency between the
>>>>>> statement "computing for all" and the kind of release strategy we
>>>>>> see from
>>> Microsoft?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>> Elizabeth Campbell
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:08 AM
>>>>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Curtis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am using Office 13 at home on my laptop running Windows 8. I
>>>>>> must confess that I did not have  the installation headaches as I
>>>>>> purchased my system and software from Bestbuy. The store in my
>>>>>> area has a very helpful geek squad, and I explained that I wanted
>>>>>> to put the computer through its paces using JAWS and so forth
>>>>>> before I
>>> purchased it.
>>>>>> The Best Buy folks took care of all of the installations for me as
>>>>>> I purchased a year of tech support for my devices.
>>>>>> I primarily use office 13 for Outlook and Word. I am a fan of
>>>>>> outlook, so I was very disappointed to see that it often crashes,
>>>>>> sometimes while I'm reading or writing a message then mysteriously
>>>>>> restarts. IN Word, I haven't used the return address features
>>>>>> since I'm creating documents for use at home or at work, and I
>>>>>> send 99
>>> percent of my correspondences via email.
>>>>>> However, I've had a lot of frustration accessing documents that
>>>>>> are protected.
>>>>>> JAWS will start reading the file and then stop. I believe what
>>>>>> happens is that Word shuts down and then restarts because I get a
>>>>>> prompt about recovering files which I can never find.
>>>>>> Interestingly enough, I ran in to this problem last week when
>>>>>> accessing some documents for a Newsline seminar.
>>>>>> I believe there is a way to unprotect files, but I haven't found
>>>>>> it
>>> yet.
>>>>>> Curtis, I agree that Office 13 is very much a work in progress,
>>>>>> and I hope Microsoft does come out with a service pack that will
>>>>>> repair these bugs which make it almost impossible to use Office
> reliably.
>>>>>> At work, I an using Windows 7 and Office 2007,and I haven't had
>>>>>> the same frustrations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liz Campbell
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Curtis
>>>>>> Chong
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 11:06 AM
>>>>>> To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> Subject: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greetings and felicitations:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Early this month, I took the rather bold step of upgrading from
>>>>>> Microsoft Office 2010 to Microsoft Office 2013. I am running the
>>>>>> 64-bit version of Windows 7 Professional.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am interested in hearing from anyone out there who has taken a
>>>>>> similar journey. Permit me to provide a brief summary of my
>>>>>> experiences
>>> so far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To begin with, the upgrade was not at all a trouble-free
>>>>>> experience. The first thing that Office 2013 wanted me to do was
>>>>>> to link to either an existing or new Microsoft account. There
>>>>>> appears no
>>> way to avoid this step.
>>>>>> Since I had a Microsoft account (which I had never used for years
>>>>>> and years) I had to spend considerable time trying to get my
>>>>>> password back. This was only the first problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, Office wanted to set up Sky Drive on my computer, which I
>>>>>> allowed at first and have since removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After the install was finished (hours of work), I tried starting
>>>>>> Word. Right away, I received a message (which was not spoken by
>>>>>> JAWS for Windows) indicating that the program had stopped working.
>>>>>> There seemed to be no way around this problem. In the end, I had
>>>>>> to contact Microsoft Support over the telephone so that someone
>>>>>> could remote into my computer and run some kind of a repair.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I am now using Microsoft Office 2013 to do real work, I must
>>>>>> point out that using this software is not without its problems.
>>>>>> For one thing, there are many situations during which JAWS goes
>>>>>> silent and during which one simply has to wait for something to
> happen.
>>>>>> For another, there are frequent instances when either Word or
>>>>>> Outlook will crash and then recover--all in complete silence (from
>>>>>> a
>>> nonvisual access standpoint).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know about the rest of you, but one strategy which I often
>>>>>> use is to open a master document from Windows Explorer, bringing
>>>>>> it into Word, then save the document under a different name so
>>>>>> that I can work on it. On my system right now, there is no way to
>>>>>> do this anymore. As soon as I hit F12 to invoke the "Save As..."
>>>>>> dialog, Word
>>> will immediately crash.
>>>>>> Interestingly, this does not happen on the Office 2013 system I am
>>>>>> using at work. Go figure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are two other problems worth mentioning. First, in Word, the
>>>>>> return and delivery address edit boxes in the Envelopes dialog are
>>>>>> not accessible with any screen access program. You simply cannot
>>>>>> read the text that may (or may not) be in these boxes. Secondly,
>>>>>> in Outlook 2013, the Signature dialog's edit box is just as
>>>>>> inaccessible to a nonvisual user as the Envelopes edit boxes in Word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These days, for new users, it is just about impossible to acquire
>>>>>> Office 2010. This is most unfortunate inasmuch as I consider
>>>>>> Office
>>>>>> 2013 to be very much a work in progress. I very much am looking
>>>>>> forward to a service pack on this from Microsoft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cordially,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Curtis Chong
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>> for
>>> nfbcs:
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/batescampbell%4
>>>>>> 0
>>>>>> charter.n
>>>>>> et
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>> for
>>> nfbcs:
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/gwunder%40earth
>>>>>> l
>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>> for
>>> nfbcs:
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.c
>>>>>> o
>>>>>> m
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>> for
>>> nfbcs:
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/gwunder%40earth
>>>>>> l
>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>> for
>>> nfbcs:
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore.
>>>>>> c
>>>>>> om
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>> for
>>> nfbcs:
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.wis
>>>>> c
>>>>> .edu
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>> for
>>> nfbcs:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore.co
>>>> m
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbcs:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/lhwayland%40sbcglo
>>> bal.net
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbcs:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfbcs mailing list
>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbcs:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.wisc.e
>> du
>>
>
> --
> ---
> John G. Heim, 608-263-4189, jheim at math.wisc.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbcs mailing list
> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbcs mailing list
> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
>

-- 
---
John G. Heim, 608-263-4189, jheim at math.wisc.edu