Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online

  • From: Chris Hofstader <cdh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:13:31 -0400

I think vinux would be a good addition to the NPII team of advisors and more. 
You should write to Gregg Vanderheiden (gv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) and tell him I sent 
you.

cdh
On Mar 28, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Bill Cox wrote:

> Hi, Chris.  The rest of the statement is excellent.  While I tend to
> agree with the FSF position on cloud computing, there is obviously
> room for debate, which is not particularly related to accessibility.
> Therefore, I also recommend removing that part.
> 
> BTW, is there any reason for Vinux to work with NPII, or is NPII a
> higher level effort?
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Chris Hofstader <cdh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have spent most of the last nine months working on NPII. I think it is a 
>> very good idea and can be managed in a way that can preserve anonymity while 
>> having some of its services running on a server. All software written by 
>> RTF/NPII will have a free software license (I think it will be MIT) but 
>> third parties, including proprietary software vendors, can use our back end 
>> to augment their products.
>> 
>> The one problem with NPII is that it is a really big project and raising 
>> money to move it out of the discussion phase is an arduous process to say 
>> the least.
>> 
>> As I said earlier, I'm collecting criticism and ideas for the next version 
>> of the GNU Accessibility Statement and appreciate the feedback.
>> 
>> So, I think we can say that this group would prefer the server based 
>> applications sentence be removed. Now, what do you guys think about 
>> everything else in the statement?
>> 
>> cdh
>> On Mar 27, 2010, at 4:05 PM, qubit wrote:
>> 
>>> I didn't see much technical at that website -- just a general overview and
>>> FAQ and white paper.  But it is interesting.  I personally wonder if it is
>>> possible to do what they want -- I mean, leveling the playing field for
>>> everyone with a broad range of disabilities and still allow normal
>>> competition in the software market -- I say this because different persons
>>> have different and sometimes conflicting needs, which would require
>>> different support not just on the net infrastructure, but also in
>>> applications.
>>> But it remains to be seen how successful this strategy will be.
>>> Are you a member?
>>> --le
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jamal Mazrui" <empower@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: "Chris Hofstader" <cdh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 2:18 PM
>>> Subject: Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I agree that there are legitimate privacy concerns that one should
>>> address when using web-based applications.  I also agree that, other
>>> things being equal, it is better to get a computing job done locally,
>>> without needing an Internet connection.
>>> 
>>> I also think that cloud computing offers much potential for people with
>>> disabilities if managed well.  A coalition of individuals and
>>> organizations in the accessibility field believes this to be the case,
>>> and has proposed a "National Public Inclusive Infrastructure" described
>>> at the web site
>>> http://npii.org/
>>> 
>>> Jamal
>>> 
>>> __________
>>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>> 
>>> __________
>>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>> 
>> 
>> __________
>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>> 
>> 
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
> 

__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind

Other related posts: