(Courriels de diversion: <galvaudait@achalande-impassibilite.com> <ravitaillais@deprime-porte-bagages.com> <consolable@lancerez-indecise.com> <obtuses@impayable-deteriorez.com> <approximativement@postera-reformes.com> <commemore@defroncer-verite.com> <interêts@cacheraient-sous-evaluerons.com> <reapprends@sous-payerait-enonciation.com> <sous-payes@cuirait-diphterie.com> <soupions@preleveras-gouter.com> )
Voici un msg que j'ai reçu sur une nouvelle liste qui s'est créée hier.
C'est une liste francopone d'utilisateurs mal ou non-voyants de Linux.
Biensûr dans le cadre du projet Biglux j'ai eu des contacts avec la personne
qui a créé cette liste (un belge) mais je ne suis pas parvenue à lui faire
rejoindre la liste Biglux. A mon sens c'est dommage : On aurait évité le
risque de la redondance mais bon, je n'ai pu le convaincre. J'ai gardé les
explications qu'il a fourni concernant la liste et je peux les poster ici si
ça vous intéresse. En attendant il a posté sur cette nouvelle liste le msg
qui suit et qui je pense est très intéressant bien que ma compréhension de
l'anglais soit très limitée. D'ailleurs si quelqu'un d'entre vous est doué
en anglais je pense qu'il serait intéressant de nous résumer un peu (en bon
français) ce qui est dit.
Quant à la réunion que l'on peut prévoir pour la semaine prochaine je suis
tout à fait d'accord. Restent à définir le jour, le lieu et l'heure. Pour ça
nous pourrons nous mettre d'accord samedi je pense.
A+
Nath
-----Message d'origine-----
De : olr@xs4all.be [mailto:olr@xs4all.be]Envoyé : mercredi 29 novembre 2000 08:07
À : carrefourblinux@egroups.comObjet : [CarrefourBLinux] accessibilite, le prochain challenge pour
Linux
Voici un petit dossier de mon cru:
Pendant que MicroSoft pratique une politique du plus grand nombre,
s'efforcant de dominer le marche du PC, ou de renfermer la personne
handicapee dans un systeme MicroSoft-only, l'article qui suit (en Anglais)
montre a quel point l'existence d'une alternative telle que Linux,
-O S social/anti-discriminatoire (*) et par ailler soucieux de subvenir
d'abord aux besoins de l'utilisateur-, est necessaire, et merite
un encouragement inconditionnel.
Pour la communaute Linux, le handicap n'est pas percu comme une charge, ni
comme une source de revenus peu rentable: ce n'est qu'une situation parmi
d'autres a laquelle la communaute de developeurs du logiciel libre
essaye d'apporter des reponses techniques durables.
Pour bien comprendre la difference entre les deux systemes, il est capital
de comprendre que, a l'oppose de l'architecture de MS-Windows, l'interface
des systemes Posix -dont Linux- est separee de l'interface utilisateur;
autrement dit, -et c'est ce point precis qui est important pour
l'accessibilite des personnes handicapees-, on est libre d'interfacer
avec le systeme par une voie textuelle (mode console) ou par la voie
graphique (interface Kde ou Gnome).
Enfin, de facon plus generale, par rapport au probleme d'accessibilite
des produits, services, et autres, aux Etats Unis il existe quelque chose
comme l'ADA (American Disability Act), dont les handicapes peuvent se
prevaloir, et qui permet de forcer une solution par la voie legale, la
ou c'est necessaire, lorsque c'est necessaire; c'est la -me semble-t-il-
un exemple a suivre, et de noter que l'ADA concerne bien plus que
l'accessibilite a l'information ou a l'informatique!
osvaLdo:~# La rosa
www.audiobraille.org
(*) Extrait de l'ADA: "no individual should be discriminated against
on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
of any place of public accommodation" (42. U.S.C. 12182[a]).
Accessibility: The Next Challenge for Linux
by Bryan Pfaffenberger p@virginia.edu 7-June-2000
As many as 500 million people worldwide have disabilities that are
impacted by inaccessible software design. If you're developing
software for Linux, take a moment to read this article and learn how
to make software more accessible for people with limited vision,
hearing and dexterity.
Linux (and free software in general) is about social justice. If you
don't believe this assertion, just ask the growing numbers of Linux
users in impoverished countries. In some countries, the cost of a
personal computer, operating system and a commercial office suite
exceeds the per capita annual income. Projects such as KDE, the K
Office suite, GNOME, Gnumeric and Abiword promise to bring computer
technology to people and communities who might not otherwise have the
means to afford it. Still, the Linux community could be doing a better
job of addressing the needs of another disadvantaged community: people
with disabilities. And we're not talking about small numbers here.
According to a recent Microsoft estimate, as many as 30 million U.S.
citizens and half a billion people worldwide have physical or
cognitive disabilities that limit their use of inaccessibly designed
computer systems.
Here's an area in which Microsoft has established a commanding lead.
In 1995, following several years of internal consciousness-raising by
accessibility champion Greg Lowney, a former Windows project manager,
Microsoft announced a formal corporate policy of taking responsibility
for the accessibility of its products. You'll learn more about the
results of this policy as you read what follows, but let me make my
point up front. Although Microsoft deserves unstinting praise for its
leadership in this area, there's an argument (and, I think, a very
important and convincing one) that the interests of people with
disabilities aren't well-served by a market that gives them no genuine
alternative to Microsoft products. A critical analysis of Microsoft's
accessibility initiatives discloses that they are not entirely
altruistic; in fact, they fit very neatly into Microsoft's ambitions
to acquire near-total dominance of the PC operating system market.
What's more, Microsoft's efforts to draw communities of people with
disabilities into a Microsoft-only world could serve, in the end, to
discourage the development of revolutionary new assistive technologies
em and a commercial office suite
exceeds the per capita annual income. Projects such as KDE, the K
Office suite, GNOME, Gnumeric and Abiword promise to bring computer
technology to people and communities who might not otherwise have the
means to afford it. Still, the Linux community could be doing a better
job of addressing the needs of another disadvantaged community: people
with disabilities. And we're not talking about small numbers here.
According to a recent Microsoft estimate, as many as 30 million U.S.
citizens and half a billion people worldwide have physical or
cognitive disabilities that limit their use of inaccessibly designed
computer systems.
Here's an area in which Microsoft has established a commanding lead.
In 1995, following several years of internal consciousness-raising by
accessibility champion Greg Lowney, a former Windows project manager,
Microsoft announced a formal corporate policy of taking responsibility
for the accessibility of its products. You'll learn more about the
results of this policy as you read what follows, but let me make my
point up front. Although Microsoft deserves unstinting praise for its
leadership in this area, there's an argument (and, I think, a very
important and convincing one) that the interests of people with
disabilities aren't well-served by a market that gives them no genuine
alternative to Microsoft products. A critical analysis of Microsoft's
accessibility initiatives discloses that they are not entirely
altruistic; in fact, they fit very neatly into Microsoft's ambitions
to acquire near-total dominance of the PC operating system market.
What's more, Microsoft's efforts to draw communities of people with
disabilities into a Microsoft-only world could serve, in the end, to
discourage the development of revolutionary new assistive technologies
that rely on a looser coupling between the operating system, window
manager, and desktop environment -- precisely the technical advantage
that Linux provides.
I'll develop and defend these points in a bit, but here's the
conclusion up front. Commendably, Microsoft's Accessibility and
Disabilities Group has done a great deal of research on how computer
hardware and software can be made more accessible to people with
limited vision, hearing, or dexterity, and they've put the results of
this research on the Web. Anyone developing software for Linux should
stop right now and read [1]this document thoroughly. Chances are
you'll learn how a few simple corrections to your interface could make
a major difference in your program's usability for a person with
limited vision, hearing, or dexterity. How does your software measure
up?
Microsoft's Accessibility Initiatives
If there's one area in which Microsoft deserves unalloyed praise, it
is the firm's commitment to accessible hardware and software design.
Lest anyone misconstrue my argument, let me clarify from the get-go
that I have nothing but admiration and respect for the people within
Microsoft who have courageously championed the accessibility cause,
and in so doing, made a genuine difference in the lives of thousands
of people with disabilities who could not otherwise use computers.
Still, Microsoft is a profit-driven company, and what's more, it's a
company that doesn't seem to know where the line is when it comes to
grabbing market share. Without meaning to impugn the motivations of
people within Microsoft who work to make the company's products more
accessible, I would nevertheless like to ask to what extent this
laudable effort might in fact have another, less altruistic dimension.
Let's begin by critically examining what Microsoft means by
accessibility. On one of the company's web pages ("[2]Accessibility
and Microsoft"), accessible computers and software are described as
those which "make it possible for more people to use these
technologies successfully in work, education, and recreation." But you
don't have to read much further to find evidence of the company's
blitzkrieg marketing mentality at work. It's all very well to design
special-purpose programs for people with disabilities, we're told, but
such measures shouldn't isolate users: "Most people with disabilities
need to use mainstream software programs to take advantage of the
latest features and to facilitate sharing working or sharing
information with their friends and coworkers" ("[3]How Computers Are
Accessible", emphasis mine). For this reason, it logically follows
that accessibility features should be implemented at the operating
system by means of application programming interface (API) features
and standards that every Windows programmer can use. In fact, the
company now mandates that programmers conform to the company's
accessibility guidelines. In order to [4]qualify for the Windows logo
program, software vendors must support the standard Windows system
size, color, font and input settings; ensure compatibility with the
High Contrast option; provide documented keyboard access to all
features; provide notification of the keyboard focus location; and
convey no information by sound alone.
What does accessibility mean, then, in Microsoft's terms? Simple: that
Microsoft Windows and as many Windows applications as possible should
meet minimum accessibility standards. On the surface, this is
perfectly natural and understandable, and even commendable; after all,
it's reasonable that a company would phrase accessibility guidelines
in such a way that highlights its own product's marketability. But
this policy has the very congenial and attractive benefit of fitting
into Microsoft's across-the-board efforts to preserve what Judge
Thomas Penfield Jackson calls the application barrier to entry, that
is, the network effects caused by the enormous mountain of
Windows-compatible software. A network effect occurs when a product,
even an inferior one, is so overwhelmingly dominant in the market that
consumers experience penalties if they choose a competing product,
even one that is technologically superior.
The relationship between Microsoft's accessibility policies and its
efforts to preserve the application barrier to entry becomes clearer
when one examines the firm's message to its corporate customers: you'd
better choose Windows, or you'll get sued. In the U.S., according to
Microsoft, federal laws (including the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990) give employees the right to "sue their employers or
prospective employers if the software they use isn't accessible" (Greg
Lowney, "[5]Need for Accessible Design"). In a business with 15 or
more employees, the document warns, failure to comply with these laws
could result in lawsuits or fines.
But what constitutes "accessible software"? Given Microsoft's
leadership and the prevalence of Microsoft's products in the
marketplace, it seems reasonable to assert that Microsoft Windows'
accessibility features define a reasonable level of accessibility,
given the limitations of current technology. And there is ample
evidence that this is precisely what is happening. For example, the
National Federation of the Blind recently argued in a U.S. federal
court that America Online, Inc. (AOL) violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act by failing to provide access to blind users. The
reason? AOL's proprietary software uses "unlabeled graphics and
commands that can be activated only by using a mouse and custom
controls" (cited in Jonathan Bick, "Does the ADA Apply?", National Law
Journal, May 15, 2000). The lawsuit alleged that this design feature
prevents the use of screen-reading programs, and by extension,
discriminates against users with limited vision. What is particularly
interesting about this lawsuit is that it defined AOL to be a "public
accommodation" as defined by the ADA, as if AOL were akin to a public
school or government office. AOL is therefore allegedly violating the
ADA, which holds that "no individual should be discriminated against
on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
of any place of public accommodation" (42. U.S.C. 12182[a]). A clear
implication of this and other court cases is that any employer running
software that does not conform to the minimum prevailing standards for
accessibility -- as defined de facto by Microsoft's accessibility
initiatives -- runs the risk of a lawsuit. The moral of the story?
You'd better run Windows.
Is a Microsoft-Dominated World in the Best Interest of People With
Disabilities?
Please do not misunderstand the argument I'm making. I applaud
Microsoft's efforts to improve the accessibility of their products,
and I'm all in favor of AOL making their software more accessible to
the visually impaired. It isn't Microsoft's fault that they're the
leading game in town when it comes to accessible operating systems,
notwithstanding the good work done by Apple and other firms. Still,
it's reasonable to ask whether a Windows-dominated world is in the
best interests of people with disabilities, and I think the answer is
no.
To put this argument in historical perspective, it's worth remembering
that for many people with disabilities, the rise of Microsoft Windows
represented an accessibility setback, at least initially. Previously,
MS-DOS-based technologies had sufficient time to develop to some
degree of maturity, and were widely used. On balance, graphical user
interfaces pose more challenges to people with visual, hearing and
dexterity disorders than text-based operating systems. As laudable as
Microsoft's accessibility initiatives are, they can be construed as a
catch-up game in which the firm has managed to overcome some, but not
all, of the inherent limitations imposed by a graphical user
interface. It's to Microsoft's credit that the company has overcome
many of these limitations, but the near-total dominance of Windows in
the PC marketplace rules out the sort of interface design flexibility
that could enable users with special needs to switch to a text-based
operating environment.
In contrast to the architecture of Microsoft Windows, Linux (like all
UNIX-like operating systems) decouples the user interface from the
underlying operating system, meaning users are free to use text-based
or graphical software (or both at once, if they wish). If they elect
to use a graphical user interface, they are similarly free to choose
from a wide variety of window managers, utilities that provide
windowing services for applications. They are also free to choose
among alternative desktop environments, such as GNOME and KDE, which
provide a consistent, easy-to-use setting for running applications and
managing one's system. The point here is that highly accessible
software could be developed at any or all levels of the operating
system hierarchy, and what's more, such software can be tailored to
the needs of specific communities; indeed, to those of specific
individuals. Furthermore, this flexibility can be maintained without
asking users to give up their ability to exchange documents or
communicate with other users -- provided, that is, that Microsoft does
not succeed in establishing its proprietary standards and protocols as
the basis for communication and data exchange on the public Internet.
Let's Provide an Alternative
With KDE 2.0 and a rejuvenated GNOME on the horizon, it's time for the
Linux community to seize the initiative in the accessibility
sweepstakes. At the minimum, window managers and desktop environments
should conform to the [6]minimum accessibility guidelines for
Windows-certified software:
1. Allow users to customize system screen display size, foreground
and background colors, focus colors and selection colors to their
needs. Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also
available without color.
2. Implement a high-contrast option without requiring the user to
alter a document or run specially designed software.
3. Provide well-documented keyboard access to all program features,
and thoroughly test keyboard controls to make sure a user with
limited vision will not become "trapped" or run into unpredictable
consequences while attempting to navigate the application using
only the keyboard. There's a strong need here for keyboard
shortcut standards that are uniformly applied and utilized at both
the desktop environment and application levels. Consistency is an
important element of software accessibility.
4. Provide notification of the keyboard focus location in a way that
is not too subtle for people with limited vision.
5. Provide visual as well as auditory information; don't convey
information by sound alone.
6. Provide text equivalents for all information; don't convey
information by graphics alone. Provide textual summaries for
graphs and charts.
Get Involved
You can help.
First, visit the [7]Accessible Linux Homepage. Housed at the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, this student project
developed features akin to Microsoft's Accessibility Options to the
XFree86 version of the X Window System. This project will need a
guiding hand, and perhaps a new home, to develop the momentum it needs
to succeed.
Second, fire up your favorite GNOME, GTK or KDE application, and see
how well it conforms to these guidelines. Imagine you're a user with
limited vision, limited hearing, or limited dexterity. Where would you
run into problems? Would you run into a dead end that left you unable
to use the program at all? Document what you've learned, provide
positive and practical suggestions and send them to the program's
authors -- and don't forget to thank them for their efforts! If you're
a programmer, offer to help implement your suggestions. Send them a
copy of this article, too.
For More Information...
De La Rue, Michael, 1997. "[8]Linux Access HOWTO".
Trace Research and Development Center, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, 2000. [9]UNIX and Linux Software Toolkit.
Walker, William D., et al., 1992. "[10]Making the X Window System More
Accessible for People with Disabilities".
Welcome to Bobby (http://www.cast.org/bobby). Bobby is a Web-based
tool that analyzes web sites for their accessibility to people with
disabilities. You can analyze your site by typing its URL into the
page's text box.
Bryan Pfaffenberger is a professor of Media Studies at the University
of Virginia and the author of several books about Linux, including
Linux Clearly Explained (Morgan-Kaufmann, 2000) and Mastering GNOME
(Sybex, 2000).
Copyright 2000 Specialized Systems Consultants, Inc.
References
1. http://microsoft.com/enable/dev/guidelines/software.htm
2. http://microsoft.com/enable/microsoft/default.htm
3. http://microsoft.com/enable/microsoft/computers.htm
4. http://microsoft.com/enable/dev/guidelines/logo.htm
5. http://microsoft.com/enable/dev/reasons.htm
6. http://microsoft.com/enable/dev/guidelines/software.htm
7. http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/accessx/
8. http://metalab.unc.edu/mdw/HOWTO/Access-HOWTO-2.html
9. http://trace.wisc.edu/world/computer_access/unix/unixshar.html
10. http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/x_win_disability/x_disabl.htm
+
11. http://noframes.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/mags.html
12. http://noframes.linuxjournal.com/subscribe/free_issue.html
13. http://www.ssc.com/
14. http://noframes.linuxjournal.com/articles/currents/021.html
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/2/_/_/_/975450443/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
carrefourblinux-unsubscribe@egroups.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: biglux-unsubscribe@savage.iut-blagnac.frFor additional commands, e-mail: biglux-help@savage.iut-blagnac.fr