Here it is...Ubuntu Phone

[Aidan Maher]

Thank you for this, Its good to no, and I agree with all said, its
just to me very unfortunet because I don't like the command line,
neither do I understand it, I have great respect for all older
computer users who noes these things better and who come out of the
dos era, as they no of a world wich young guys like me no nothing
about. But sorry for my ignoarance, but then if I may ask as I don't
no these things wel, is orca then the only screenreader available
except for speakup wich is drivvin command line? I mean shouldn't we
also need perhaps more third party access software if ubuntu won't
incorperate one in their system? I also never new that firefox didn't
work wel on mac, intresting.

On 06/01/2013, B. Henry <burt1iband at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, you can have the eloquence voices on Linux systems. There are packages
> built for Debian&Ubuntu, and I know that people have it working on other
> distros as well, probably from the same tarballs, but don't remember for
> sure.
> Try googling Voxin or oralux. (I may have the spelling wrong on that last
> one)
> Anyway, the same ibmtts that is used by eloquence and ibmviavoice is used by
> voxin. It's refferred to as ibmtts in speechdispatcher configuration files.
>
> The voices cost $5 per language. They work with both speechdispatcher and
> emacspeak speech servers. There's a special installation package that
> configures your system to be able to use the voices with emacspeak that is
> updated as new releases of Debian and Ubuntu come out. I have used the
> Spanish voices as espeak doesn't sound good at all with Spanish.
> I'm tired/not looking for urls nor writing very well right now, but write me
> off list and I can hook you up with more information if you have any trouble
> finding these voices.
> Orca, and speakup for that matter have nothing to do with Ubuntu, or at
> least no more is Ubuntu responsible for their development than is Microsoft
> responsible for NVDA, Jaws or any other windows screen-reader. I will say
> that Orca's only been around for about a third of the time that jaws and
> window-eyes have more or less. NVDA does for sure give a better experience
> in most cases  than does Orca, but if you are willing to do a fair amount of
> your computing on the command line I find that you can make up   for some of
> the shortcomings with GUI accessibility in Linux.
> Any conparisons are OT for this thread anyway, and really OT for this list,
> so I'll just leave it there except for saying that I think most of us are
> glad to see improvements in access for any and all platforms. I certainly
> want to have as many options as  possible. I for one do %95 of my computing
> on Linux, but I wish it were more practical for me to use Linux for that
> other %5, and I wish I was more efficient for some tasks I do under Linux
> that I could sometimes do faster on a windows machine.
> Regards,
> --
> B.H.
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 09:51:11PM +0200, Aidan Maher wrote:
>> Wel, I am stil learning this thing, but I don't see how I can get away
>> from windows, I mean we don't even have elliquence in linux systems,
>> neither half of the functions jaws can offer, but very true that
>> ubuntu is a great system and I agree with all said that it must be
>> taken much more seriously. I just think that many people should not be
>> blamed if they stil use windows as there are reasons for that. A
>> balance is always helthy.
>>
>> On 05/01/2013, B. Henry <burt1iband at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Terrible! I am appauled reading that your msg was marked spam.
>> > Sadly, your friends and you are in the majority of blind computer users
>> > in
>> > deciding that Windows meets their needs better than current Linux
>> > realeases
>> > due to the lack of major progress of a<ccessibility.i
>> > There is no doubt that as far as web-browsing goes NVDA/firefox gives a
>> > muuch better experience on most web-pages than does any
>> > browser with Linux screenreading options. I'd go as far as to say that
>> > NVDA/firefox is the gold standard for accessible web-browsing.  There's
>> > also
>> > no doubt that web-browsers are if not the most important programs on
>> > most
>> > computers they are one of the most used and most indespensible pieces
>> > of
>> > software for the majority of users. This is close to as true for blind
>> > users
>> > as it is for the population in general, and I think  that I'm not alone
>> > when
>> > I say that it is very hard to continue to be pasient waiting on an
>> > acceptable level of web-browser accessibility. The ball is not in
>> > Ubuntu's
>> > court in general here, but as is said below at the very least it is
>> > important to fast track the inclusion of latest accessibility software
>> > in to
>> > Ubuntu.
>> > I think I'm correct in saying that it's a scramble to get the LTS
>> > releases
>> > minimally accessible when first deamed ready for production use. When
>> > major
>> > accessibility bugs are still not fixed when the LTS comes out of beta
>> > this
>> > says to me that Canical needs to dedicate more resources to making
>> > Ubuntu
>> > usable by blind users.
>> > I'd like to see mid-term Ubuntu releases have  a similar level of
>> > accessibility to that now acheived with the LTSs, and resolvable
>> > accessibility issues dealt with issues treated as critical for all
>> > long-term-support Ubuntu releases.
>> > Especially with a mobile Ubuntu option top line accessibility seems like
>> > it
>> > could even make good business sense. Apple has captured a much larger
>> > share
>> > of the blind-mobile-user market than they'd have if other platforms
>> > offered
>> > similar levels of out of the box accessibility. (I hope that latest
>> > android
>> > has acheived comparible accessibility to ios, but do not have devices
>> > to
>> > compare to know if this is the case or not.)
>> > Anyway, it'll be an uphill battle for Ubuntu to catch up in mobile
>> > space, so
>> > why not try and do so everywhere possible, including  with blind folk?
>> > I'll be looking at the Shuttleworth blog post for sure, and if enough of
>> > us
>> > speak up who knows! I hope others find the minutes required to comment
>> > as
>> > well, and if we are consistently treated as spammers then we certainly
>> > need
>> > to take this to as broad an audience as is possible. I really hope that
>> > this
>> > was an odd exception and that our voices will be heard by the Ubuntu
>> > community at  large, and especially by the powers that be at Canonical.
>> > --
>> > Burt Henry
>> >
>> >  On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 10:50:33PM -0600, Nolan Darilek wrote:  a
>> >> > So if you wish to see Ubuntu accessibility improved, here area some
>> >> > blog posts you might wish to comment on.
>> >> >
>> >> > Here is Mark Shuttleworth's post on goals for 2013, not wishing to
>> >> > leave anyone behind, and striving to be relevant to the types of
>> >> > computing everyone wants to do. It's silly for a company like
>> >> > Canonical to state that they don't wish to leave anyone behind in
>> >> > 2013 when the next guaranteed accessible release will be in 2014.
>> >> > Similarly, it's silly for Canonical to want to be relevant to all
>> >> > types of computing, while telling blind users and others that we
>> >> > cannot have the latest At-SPI or ATK releases for our browsers. I am
>> >> > a developer. I need the latest accessibility infrastructure so I can
>> >> > develop accessible websites, and I struggle to do so  as my browser
>> >> > fails to render some sites accessibly. When I used Ubuntu 11.04, I
>> >> > found that I had less access in Firefox than I do under 12.10,
>> >> > possibly because I wasn't using the latest AT-SPI. I'm finding that
>> >> > Windows 7 is more relevant to my needs as a blind web developer than
>> >> > is Ubuntu because Firefox under NVDA is more accessible than is
>> >> > Firefox under Ubuntu:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1221/comment-page-1#comment-400356
>> >> >
>> >> > Unfortunately, I wrote a nice and diplomatic comment only to have
>> >> > Akismet decide that my sentiments were spam. I returned to the post
>> >> > a few days later to find a message to that effect, and now there is
>> >> > no record of my comment at all. It's sad when you expend so much
>> >> > effort on being diplomatic and respectful only for some automated
>> >> > system to decide that your sentiments are spam and that they should
>> >> > be removed.
>> >> >
>> >> > 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.,
>> >> >
>> >> > On 01/04/2013 09:06 PM, Robert Cole wrote:
>> >> > >Hello, Burt.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Your e-mail was accidentally sent to me, but not to the list. I am
>> >> > >forwarding your message to the list. I hope that this is alright.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Kind regards.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Take care.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >On 01/04/2013 07:00 PM, B. Henry wrote:
>> >> > >>Well, I certainly am behind, and if the opportunity presents
>> >> > >>itself alongside of those who would like to see an effort made
>> >> > >>to make all Ubuntu releases as accessible as is reasonably
>> >> > >>possible.  The big word is of course reasonably.
>> >> > >>I am someone who wants things to work for me and those with
>> >> > >>similar and other limitations when it's practical. Personally
>> >> > >>I'm not that unhappy with using LTS releases, but enjoyed using
>> >> > >>Maverick on several machines and I'm writing to you from the
>> >> > >>version of Vinux based on Natty, so I'm certainly not one who'd
>> >> > >>never use a mid-term Ubuntu version.
>> >> > >>Perhaps if Ubuntu can gain market share and hence money from
>> >> > >>some of the changes that are being implemented then some of that
>> >> > >>money can be put back in to accessibility development. I can be
>> >> > >>patient with a short term lapse in accessibility, but do
>> >> > >>sincerely hope that this is not a strategy that is considered
>> >> > >>good enough for the long term, and I'll certainly add my voice
>> >> > >>to those who are calling for  a more inclusive Ubuntu.
>> >> > >>On the other hand I can't see that out of the box accessibility
>> >> > >>is better with Fedora, or for that matter any major cutting
>> >> > >>edge/rapid release distro. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but even
>> >> > >>if I'm not there's no reason why just keeping a half a step
>> >> > >>ahead of average is good enough when it comes to accessibility.
>> >> > >>Regards, and yes special regards and thanks to Luke and others
>> >> > >>who work with what they have to give us the accessibility that
>> >> > >>they can.
>> >> > >>--
>> >> > >>Burt Henry
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>On 01/04/2013 01:09 AM, Robert Cole wrote:
>> >> > >>>Hello, Nolan.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>When I first switched to Linux, I did so because I fell in
>> >> > >>>love with Ubuntu. Ubuntu is what I used (exclusively) until
>> >> > >>>the accessibility issues began to kick in. I am very
>> >> > >>>appreciative of the hard work which the Accessibility team
>> >> > >>>puts into Ubuntu, and I understand that they are very limited
>> >> > >>>because fo various reasons. My frustration si most certainly
>> >> > >>>not with them, but with teh company whose operating system I
>> >> > >>>fell in love with back in 2006. I still remember the
>> >> > >>>excitement I felt when I saw the Ubuntu philosophy "for human
>> >> > >>>beings".
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>But then, as time moved on, I had to move on as well. I really
>> >> > >>>enjoyed using Unity, and I absolutely loved all that Ubuntu
>> >> > >>>had to offer. If it was always as accessible as it once was, I
>> >> > >>>would definitely go back. I don't want to sound strange in
>> >> > >>>saying this, but I am kind of "homesick" for my first Linux
>> >> > >>>operating system. While I am enjoying my experience with
>> >> > >>>Fedora, I really miss what I had come to know in Ubuntu.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>I am not sure how I can help. I had posted a comment on Mark
>> >> > >>>Shuttleworth's blog sometime in 2012, but it seemed to go
>> >> > >>>unnoticed.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>I forwarded this message to the AccessibleFreedom Support
>> >> > >>>mailing list; I hope that this is alright.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>In this world's eyes, I am basically a nobody, but if I can
>> >> > >>>somehow lend my voice in support of what you are standing for,
>> >> > >>>I will certainly do so. I am not online as much as I used to
>> >> > >>>be, but as I am able I will help you in making this call for
>> >> > >>>accessibility known.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>Kind regards.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>On 01/02/2013 03:50 PM, Nolan Darilek wrote:
>> >> > >>>>I would like to organize some sort of advocacy effort to get
>> >> > >>>>Canonical to take accessibility more seriously. I understand
>> >> > >>>>the limitations of the current accessibility team, but if we
>> >> > >>>>look back at the state of computing two years ago vs. today,
>> >> > >>>>any reasonable person would agree that telling a certain
>> >> > >>>>subset of the population that they can only be assured
>> >> > >>>>accessible software on that schedule while others get
>> >> > >>>>upgrades every six months is unreasonable. I don't want
>> >> > >>>>Ubuntu to be another Android, an accessibility situation
>> >> > >>>>with which I am quite familiar.
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>>I tried posting a comment here:
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>>http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1221/comment-page-1#comment-400356
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>>because a post that claims that Canonical doesn't want to
>> >> > >>>>leave users behind in 2013 seems at odds with a company
>> >> > >>>>whose next release I will have guaranteed access to won't be
>> >> > >>>>out until 2014. Unfortunately, my comment got caught up in
>> >> > >>>>Akismet and appears to have vanished. Perhaps others who
>> >> > >>>>feel the same should ask Mark not to leave accessibility
>> >> > >>>>behind while Canonical charges ahead in so many other areas.
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>>Ubuntu Phone uses QML 5. I get that QT isn't as accessible,
>> >> > >>>>but it's being adopted by a bunch of companies in the mobile
>> >> > >>>>space, so you'd think that they'd have all contributed
>> >> > >>>>toward making it accessible. Perhaps it's time for Canonical
>> >> > >>>>to set a good example in this space and contribute more
>> >> > >>>>toward accessibility than it currently does.
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>>I'm going to start actively commenting on Canonical and
>> >> > >>>>other blogs, advocating for the expansion of the
>> >> > >>>>accessibility team. Thoughts on what else we can do? I'd
>> >> > >>>>love to do this stuff myself, but I'm already writing an
>> >> > >>>>Android screen reader and working on Android accessibility
>> >> > >>>>projects, and end users can't always be called upon to take
>> >> > >>>>up the slack that paying companies leave behind.
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list
>> >> > Ubuntu-accessibility at lists.ubuntu.com
>> >> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list
>> > Ubuntu-accessibility at lists.ubuntu.com
>> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
>> >
>
> --
> Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list
> Ubuntu-accessibility at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
>