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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> >> > [email protected] >> >> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility >> > >> > -- >> > Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility >> > > > -- > Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility > -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
