Campaign for Ubuntu Accessibility [was "Re: Here it is...Ubuntu Phone"]

[B. Henry]

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 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.,
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list
> Ubuntu-accessibility at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility