Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online

a truely insightful article.
What was robobraille? automated braille translation? I remember the 
suggestion but missed the controversy, if there was one on this list.
Thank you for the link.
--le

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Dunleavy" <jim.dunleavy@xxxxxx>
To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online


Hi Chris,

I think the warning against server based applications should be retained in
some form.
Some time ago, on this mailing list, there was strong criticism of the
RoboBraille service.
The FSF has a more nuanced article about "cloud computing" at:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html

--Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Hofstader <cdh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: GNU Accessibility Statement Online


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

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

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

Other related posts: