[nfbcs] NVDA product question

[Aaron Cannon]

I think the reason we haven't seen more arguments with Tim's article
is that, frankly, his main points are hard to track.  I can't complain
too much though, as I suspect that he writes much more clearly than I
do. :)

As for what he says about NVDA:
"The work that the developers of NVDA have done is exceptional. On a
small budget they have developed a really good product and have
provided a free screen reader to many thousands of people around the
world who couldn't previously afford one, especially in developing
countries. Their technical skills and dedication are to be applauded;
however, I have a problem with the funding model they have chosen.
Philanthropic funding is at best a fragile beast, and it often doesn't
extend to covering services like training and support, which can be
the most important components of accessibility (especially in
education). The bigger issue of equity and why we accept such a
fundamental right as access to a computer to be at the whim of
philanthropic generosity should be of tremendous concern. Do we
welcome it simply because the recipients are people with a disability?
Why is this particular group of people not worthy of a business model
that guarantees standards of support, service, and viability? The
developers of NVDA need investors, not handouts."

Perhaps my brain just isn't working right this morning, but I am
having a hard time following his objections to NVDA.  If I understand
it right, he is saying that the funding model for NVDA is fragile, so
we shouldn't trust it.  He also seems to be arguing that it's based on
charity, and so beneath us, and besides, it doesn't allow for user
support and training.

If this is correct, I remain unconvinced.  NVDA support is available
from various organizations, for a fee.  Jaws users, on the other hand,
end up also paying for support, but they do so up front, whether they
need it or not.

Training is also available for a fee, but that's certainly not unique
to NVDA.  Jaws does come with some training materials, but similar
materials are also available for free for NVDA.

I agree that NVDA funding is more fragile than we should like, but
much of what we the blind rely on is philanthropic in nature.  And, if
one source of funding dries up, another one is found.  And anyway, I
don't see traditional sources of investment funding being
substantially more reliable than philanthropic ones.

Investors/donors come, and investors/donors go, and organizations
either find new ones, figure out a way to due without, or fail.  So
far, NVAccess seems to have been able to find new ones when needed.

Consider what would happen if FS and NVAccess went under, and all the
developers moved on to bigger and better things (or at least things
that would provide them with a paycheck).  Jaws would be gone.  You're
already installed copies would probably work, but there would be no
way to install the full version on new machines.

NVDA, on the other hand, would still be available.  Not only would it
still be available to install, but it would be available to improve,
fix, and whatever else someone wanted to do with it, within the bounds
of the GPL license.  It's even possible that a new group of developers
would come along and keep the project going.

In short, Jaws belongs to FS.  NVDA belongs, in a very literal sense,
to everyone.  I'd much rather see money invested into something I own
than into something I don't.

That's all for now.

Aaron