[nfbcs] Linux kernel Patch for Speakup
Jude DaShiell
jdashiel at shellworld.net
Thu Mar 13 06:24:58 UTC 2014
Probably, lots more agnosticism about brands and versions of screen
readers in use especially by Government agencies employing screen reader
users may help provide a little bit of a bridge for those employees into
some of this innovation which is properly considered construction zones.
Such agnosticism is non-existent in my previous experience to date.
A message over on the fedaccessibility email list described the consent
agreement between Department Of Justice and H. & R. Block; enforcement
has just happened to H. & R. Block and full effects should be noticeable
by the year 2016 in that case.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, 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%40
> > > >> 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%40earthl
> > > >> 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.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/gwunder%40earthl
> > > >> 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.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/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/lhwayland%40sbcglobal.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/jdashiel%40shellworld.net
>
>
jude <jdashiel at shellworld.net>
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list