Re: Graphical Linux

Re: Graphical Linux

[Alessandro Rubini]

Janina raises this problems:
> I'm assuming that GUI under Linux is far from accessible in most cases

This is not true, as reported by the Gnome developer called Lupus in
the italian blinux list.

He managed to attach a "speech server" to gnome in order to attach
sound to the whole GUI in a single step. The underlying
object-orientedness of the interface simplifies this kind of tasks,
and he reported that it has been easy. As far as I know his code is
not yet released, but it will.

His description of the functionality is impressive, but he sent it in
Italian because we were asking for prime-time information in the local
list. Anyways, my point here is that there's no reason to be afraid of
the GUI under Linux: the software is better designed than windows, and
there is ample space for implementing what users need.

Another point of Janina:
> the more Linux becomes popular the more graphical the
> applications and even the OS will become.

That's the main reason why Lupus wanted to attach speech to Gnome
instead of helping the local group with text-only support. On the
other hand, there is a lot of people who remain text-only independent
of their being blind or not. As a matter of facts, most good programs
have a dual frontend: graphical and text. The text interface is vital
for proficient use of computers over slow networks and for automating
task and I'm confident it will never die. I work text-only most of my
time.

Best regards
/alessandro

Re: Graphical Linux

[Paolo Molaro]

On Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 08:29:17AM +0100, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> He managed to attach a "speech server" to gnome in order to attach
> sound to the whole GUI in a single step. The underlying
> object-orientedness of the interface simplifies this kind of tasks,
> and he reported that it has been easy. As far as I know his code is
> not yet released, but it will.

A snapshot is available in the gnome cvs server: it's not ready for
prime time, though, and it only supports festival so far.
The framework is in place to add support for hardware speech
devices and the like (I need to get the specs somewhere) ...
I'd like to get feedback from you when things are in a more
advanced state.

> Another point of Janina:
> > the more Linux becomes popular the more graphical the
> > applications and even the OS will become.
> 
> That's the main reason why Lupus wanted to attach speech to Gnome
> instead of helping the local group with text-only support. On the

There will be a lot of new linux applications that will not have
support for text interfaces. It's important to move forward and
not be left behind. I think a lot of blind people will continue to
use emacspeak as the primary interface.

lupus

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
lupus@debian.org                                     debian/rules

Re: Graphical Linux

[Ann K. Parsons]

Hi all,

Interesting conversation this.  I saw an article on the EASI list
today about a new technology for the web that allows people to call in
and to hear web pages over the phone.  the script is written in PERL.
They will have to keep text if this technology is to continue.  It may
prove to be an answer.  Search EASI archives for info on this.

Ann P.
 
-- 
Ann K. Parsons
email:  akp@eznet.net
web site:  http://home.eznet.net/~akp

"All that is gold does not glitter.
Not all those who wander are lost."
J.R.R. Tolkien

Re: Graphical Linux

[Hans Zoebelein]

Please consider that the web _is_ non graphical but nice ASCII stuff
(besides the pics). Look into an html file. 

Using Emacspeak and a quality hardware synthesizer you have the same 
"new" technology at your finger tips now. In addition you can
evaluate web pages precisely and produce pages by yourself.

So this hearing stuff might be an answer, but I think there is no
question for the _active_ user, which technology to use...
When you want to have a real grip on the web, you need a tool which can
grasp. Emacspeak and your ears can, your ears alone cannot. 

--Hans


On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Ann K. Parsons wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Interesting conversation this.  I saw an article on the EASI list
> today about a new technology for the web that allows people to call in
> and to hear web pages over the phone.  the script is written in PERL.
> They will have to keep text if this technology is to continue.  It may
> prove to be an answer.  Search EASI archives for info on this.
> 
> Ann P.
>  
> 

Re: Graphical Linux

[Ann K. Parsons]

Hi all,

Hans, good point, just interesting happenings.  BTW, is there a good
html writer/converter for Linux, or do you write it all by hand?

Ann P.

-- 
Ann K. Parsons
email:  akp@eznet.net
web site:  http://home.eznet.net/~akp

"All that is gold does not glitter.
Not all those who wander are lost."
J.R.R. Tolkien

Re: Graphical Linux

[Jason White]

Emacspeak definitely provides the best auditory interface to the web of
which I am aware. It takes advantage of the auditory extension that were
included in the W3C's Cascading Style Sheets, level 2 specification
(CSS2), which enable specific speech qualities and non-speech cues to be
associated with specific elements of an HTML document based on rules
defined in the style sheet. Also, Emacspeak implements HTML constructs
which allow labels to be attached explicitly to form controls and define a
tabbing order in which the components of a form can be read. These ideas
were taken up in the W3C HTML 4.0 specification. T. V. Raman can thus be
credited with having developed both the aural cascading style sheets and
the HTML form extensions, both of which are part of the underlying
technology that defines the web today.

As usual, the innovative, research-based solutions have been setting the
agenda which others are now inclined to follow. With strong interest in
Linux from the educational and research communities, this trend can be
expected to continue. I would predict that Linux and other open-source
systems are likely to define the environment in which significant future
developments will take place in the field of braille and auditory
interfaces. 

Re: Graphical Linux

[Justin Mann]

How does emaxspeak work if I wanted to talk to a shell in linux dirrectly,
do I have to go directly through emax?  Or, can I find a screen reader for
linux that will help me with that avenue/ At 09:10 PM 3/9/1999 +0100, you
wrote:
>Please consider that the web _is_ non graphical but nice ASCII stuff
>(besides the pics). Look into an html file. 
>
>Using Emacspeak and a quality hardware synthesizer you have the same 
>"new" technology at your finger tips now. In addition you can
>evaluate web pages precisely and produce pages by yourself.
>
>So this hearing stuff might be an answer, but I think there is no
>question for the _active_ user, which technology to use...
>When you want to have a real grip on the web, you need a tool which can
>grasp. Emacspeak and your ears can, your ears alone cannot. 
>
>--Hans
>
>
>On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Ann K. Parsons wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Interesting conversation this.  I saw an article on the EASI list
>> today about a new technology for the web that allows people to call in
>> and to hear web pages over the phone.  the script is written in PERL.
>> They will have to keep text if this technology is to continue.  It may
>> prove to be an answer.  Search EASI archives for info on this.
>> 
>> Ann P.
>>  
>> 
>
>---
>Send your message for blinux-list to blinux-list@redhat.com
>Blinux software archive at ftp://leb.net/pub/blinux
>Blinux web page at http://leb.net/blinux
>To unsubscribe send mail to blinux-list-request@redhat.com
>with subject line: unsubscribe
>
>

Re: graphical linux

[L. C. Robinson]

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Martin McCormick wrote:

> 	I am going to play devil's advocate for a minute.  Suppose
> some business sells a package that will run under Linux but breaks all
> the rules that would make it work for us.  The package is a binary
> executable that simply does what it pleases with the hardware because
> it is written in valid Intel code and reports to know where all the
> ports are.

Don't worry about that.  WIN95/98 are just multitasking GUIs that
run on top of MS-DOS 7.0.  MS-DOS is pretty much just a glorified
program loader.  Linux is a real operating system and operates
in 32 bit protected mode ALL the time, with IO access to the 
to ALL peripherals forced to go through the kernel .  All UNIX
does this, so you are protected from applications that break
the rules -- such attempts show up as a bug, and generally 
crash the program, but do not affect the OS (Linux).  This is
oversimplifying only a little bit.
 
> 	Windows applications are just such code and run under DOS
> which was originally fairly accessible until everybody started
> treating it as a stub to launch their own self-contained code that
> takes care of, or pretends to take care of input and output which is
> about 90% of all our present grief with Windows.

That programs can get away with this, and in some cases must do so,
because the OS, in some cases, does not provide reasonable basic IO
services, is one reason that MicroSoft OS products are such trash.
There are many other reasons too.

> 	If the application was popular, we would have another Lotus
> Notes on our hands and we wouldn't be any better off than we presently
> are in DOS.
 
> 	I hope that public and private developers will think it is
> much less trouble to do it right, but there is a long tradition in the
> PC world of cowboy coding when it seems to serve the immediate
> purpose.

Again, the Linux OS kernel enforces (and makes possible) somewhat
better coding practices.
 
> 	I hope I am all wet and needlessly spreading alarm, but we
> need to be aware that this might happen.

Well, you will no doubt be relieved to know that you can dry
off now.  <grin>

I believe that as linux moves more into the desktop markets, we
will see better designed hardware, too, that conforms to accepted
standards, and we will see more and better hardware standards.
Consumers will know that they can demand this, and get it.  The
history of computing shows that as more open standards become
available, at reasonable prices, proprietary solutions fall by the
wayside.

-- 
L. C. Robinson
reply to lcr@cyberhighway.net

People buy MicroShaft for compatibility, but get incompatibility and
instability instead.  This is award winning "innovation".  Find
out how MS holds your data hostage with "The *Lens*"; see
"CyberSnare" at http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html

Re: Graphical Linux

[Hans Zoebelein]

I personally prefer to write raw html.
Emacs (and so Emacspeak) should have a nice mode to write html web pages.
You even can check for errors and it complains if it finds some.

--Hans 


On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Ann K. Parsons wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Hans, good point, just interesting happenings.  BTW, is there a good
> html writer/converter for Linux, or do you write it all by hand?
> 
> Ann P.
> 
> 

Re: graphical linux

[Kevin Forge]

I get where you are going.  However it is much more difficult to code 
directly for the hardware on Linux than to go through the kernel.

More importantly any such program must run as ROOT.  SVGAlib which
was written for running games is basically dead because users wouldn't
accept this.  Even X itself only partially runs as root.  The
developers are not satisfied and this is why fbcon has been put 
into the kernel.

My advise.  Be vigilant and spread the alarm on Linux news sites
whenever someone attempts such a thing.

Martin McCormick wrote:
> 
>         I am going to play devil's advocate for a minute.  Suppose
> some business sells a package that will run under Linux but breaks all
> the rules that would make it work for us.  The package is a binary
> executable that simply does what it pleases with the hardware because
> it is written in valid Intel code and reports to know where all the
> ports are.
> 
>         Windows applications are just such code and run under DOS
> which was originally fairly accessible until everybody started
> treating it as a stub to launch their own self-contained code that
> takes care of, or pretends to take care of input and output which is
> about 90% of all our present grief with Windows.
> 
>         If the application was popular, we would have another Lotus
> Notes on our hands and we wouldn't be any better off than we presently
> are in DOS.
> 
>         I hope that public and private developers will think it is
> much less trouble to do it right, but there is a long tradition in the
> PC world of cowboy coding when it seems to serve the immediate
> purpose.
> 
>         I hope I am all wet and needlessly spreading alarm, but we
> need to be aware that this might happen.
> 
> Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK
> OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group
> 
> ---
> Send your message for blinux-list to blinux-list@redhat.com
> Blinux software archive at ftp://leb.net/pub/blinux
> Blinux web page at http://leb.net/blinux
> To unsubscribe send mail to blinux-list-request@redhat.com
> with subject line: unsubscribe

Re: graphical linux

[Martin McCormick]

	I am going to play devil's advocate for a minute.  Suppose
some business sells a package that will run under Linux but breaks all
the rules that would make it work for us.  The package is a binary
executable that simply does what it pleases with the hardware because
it is written in valid Intel code and reports to know where all the
ports are.

	Windows applications are just such code and run under DOS
which was originally fairly accessible until everybody started
treating it as a stub to launch their own self-contained code that
takes care of, or pretends to take care of input and output which is
about 90% of all our present grief with Windows.

	If the application was popular, we would have another Lotus
Notes on our hands and we wouldn't be any better off than we presently
are in DOS.

	I hope that public and private developers will think it is
much less trouble to do it right, but there is a long tradition in the
PC world of cowboy coding when it seems to serve the immediate
purpose.

	I hope I am all wet and needlessly spreading alarm, but we
need to be aware that this might happen.

Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK 
OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group

Re: Graphical Linux

[Hans Zoebelein]

Linux as an the UNIX operating systems has one big plus:
Applications are cleanly divided into a application core where stuff
happens and a user interface which presents the results to the user.
This makes a difference to another graphical bound operating system where
you get the application as a big black box which has to use windows for its
output and WYSIWYG. (What you see is what you get. But what will you get
if you cannot see?)  
  
For a Linux application you easily can write (when you know how to code :)
another user interface which takes the application output and translates
it into a form you like it (graphics into sound or braille output). So the
door will always be open to use applications written for Linux by a user
who is blind. This will even improve when market share of Linux increases 
further. 

Linux will never become "graphical" because in Linux graphics is not
mixed up with the Linux core operating system but runs in user
space. (There are other operating systems which are totally windows
oriented and have graphics integrated in their kernel).

So the fear of users who are blind that the access door under Linux might
closing some day is unfounded.I'm not a prophet but you should find out 
that blind accessibility to Linux will improve with time. 

And _you_ can speed up this process in contributing actively by 

* supporting developers with bug reports and suggestions.
* providing kind first help to blinux newbees. 
* learning newbees where to find stuff they want to know.
* learning how to code. (Perl is a wonderful language. Try it out).
* writing code.
* much much more... use your imagination.

--Hans


On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Janina Sajka wrote:

> Hi:
> 
> The following little news snipet was in yesterday's Edupage, an online
> news digest about telecomm and computer things. It caught my interest
> because it says that the Mexican government is planning a mass
> distribution of this software to schools. 
> 
> Does anyone know anything about the implications here? I'm assuming that
> GUI under Linux is far from accessible in most cases--much worse than
> Microsoft Windows or IBM OS2. But there's an even worse fear in my mind,
> which is that the more Linux becomes popular the more graphical the
> applications and even the OS will become. So, will blind people have to
> fight that battle yet again? Or am I fearing a paper tiger?

Re: graphical linux

[Peter Rayner]

As a general point on how graphical we can expect Linux to get,
there's one very good reason why a non-graphical interface will remain
important.  Client-server architecture is deeply rooted in the
thinking of a lot of software development efforts.  Provided the
protocol is (1) sufficiently rich to do the job, and (2) sufficiently
well-defined to copy one always has a way into such software.

Now, if only X-windows didn't fail (1).  I'm fairly confident about
important parts of the  Linux world staying accessible.
Peter Rayner

Re: Graphical Linux

[Kevin Forge]

Jason White wrote:
> 
> As an aside, I recently noticed that Caldera were funding a free software
> project to develop a system administration tool for Linux, supporting
> graphical, web and command line interfaces. Linuxconf is similar in this
> respect. There is also a graphical word processor, Lyx
> (http://www.lyx.org/) which is is actually an interface to LaTeX. I think
> there is also a graphical interface available for the mh mail system.
> 
> For existing command line tools, it is clearly convenient to add a
> graphical interface instead of rewriting the original software itself. For
> new applications, however, there may not be such strong incentives for
> developers to provide multiple interfaces, other than the need to support
> scripts, as indicated in my earlier contribution.
> 
> As I am not a programmer, I don't know to what extent modern software
> development environments and techniques will facilitate more open and
> flexible approaches; but it is an important issue to consider nonetheless.
> 

Nothing to worry about.  The things that are GUI only are things for 
which there is an appropriate text mode already, or for which a command 
line version is pointless ( The Gimp for instance ).

Re: Graphical Linux

[Jason White]

As an aside, I recently noticed that Caldera were funding a free software
project to develop a system administration tool for Linux, supporting
graphical, web and command line interfaces. Linuxconf is similar in this
respect. There is also a graphical word processor, Lyx
(http://www.lyx.org/) which is is actually an interface to LaTeX. I think
there is also a graphical interface available for the mh mail system.

For existing command line tools, it is clearly convenient to add a
graphical interface instead of rewriting the original software itself. For
new applications, however, there may not be such strong incentives for
developers to provide multiple interfaces, other than the need to support
scripts, as indicated in my earlier contribution.

As I am not a programmer, I don't know to what extent modern software
development environments and techniques will facilitate more open and
flexible approaches; but it is an important issue to consider nonetheless.

Re: Graphical Linux

[Jason White]

Another favourable tendency is the desire to be able to write scripts
which automate routine tasks within an application. As soon as these
scripts become more than simple macros that simulate keystrokes, it
becomes necessary for the script to be able to determine the state of the
application and the output of particular operations. Emacs, with a full
extension language in which most of the editor is implemented, is the
ultimate case of such a design.

If a similar need is felt within the graphical desktops and their
applications, this may lead to the development of means whereby the data
and functionality of the application can be accessed independently of the
WIMP interface, thus allowing parallel braille and auditory interfaces to
be constructed.

Re: Graphical Linux

[Ron Marriage]

At 08:33 PM 3/5/99 -0700, Whistler wrote:
>
>
>I think you don'thave much to worry about the problem with windows is that
>in order to do anything we were forced to be graphical that will never
>happen to Linux or unix no matter how popular it gets.  While it is true
>there will be much new graphical stuff we have to deal with and fight the
>true power in linux is at the command line and there is no one out there
>that is trying to totally do away with the command line like microsoft
>was.

I remember people saying the exact same thing about DOS when Windows came out.
Now there are still people working in a DOS environment, but with old
outdated  applications and supported by no one. 
X windows setups are a reality and becomming more and more popular.  KDE
and GNOME are what attracts people to Linux today as much as stability.

>In fact as Xwindows gets more popular the more standard it will get the
>more easy it will be for groups like Ultra sonics to write speech
>aplications for xwin.  Unlike Microjunk we have access to the xwindows
>source code and if there is something so wrong that our speech software
>will not work then we can fix it.  Linux has a lot of growing to do for
>people with disabilities but Linux is far more easy for developers to get
>into the guts of and find what they need than microsoft ever was.
>

I do hope you are right.  I don't see it as accident that a lister posted
that all the machines at Linux World were running X.
It would make me feel better if I knew that something was around the bend.
While I, because of job requirements as well as blind, work all day in
console, when I get home the wife and kids want X with all the easy buttons
and nice menu options. And I have to admit that sometimes, I'd like to try
out the newest and latest X applications too.

Ron

Ron Marriage
Email    = mailto:marriage@seidata.com
Homepage = http://www.seidata.com/~marriage/
Blind Related Links
http://www.seidata.com/~marriage/rblind.html
or
http://welcome.to/blindlinks

Re: Graphical Linux

[L. C. Robinson]

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Janina Sajka wrote:

Announcement about the Gnome GUI desktop deleted...

> Does anyone know anything about the implications here?

It means that Linux is moving rapidly into the non-techie user
market, and that the mean spirited exclusiveness we have seen from
a small group of subscribers here, will be increasingly out of
place.  We need all kinds of users at all levels and with all kinds
of needs to point out the problems for various groups, so that the
developers can bring Linux into the mainstream more and more.
Gnome and KDE are huge steps in that direction, and in my opinion,
make Linux at least as usable as win95/98/NT (easier, for me,
and a lot of other people).

> I'm assuming that GUI under Linux is far from accessible in most
> cases--much worse than Microsoft Windows or IBM OS2.

Depends on which GUI choice you are speaking of.  Linux has
many options.  Some users might be able to connect a large
screen TV via some kind of cheap NC (web top box or internet
appliance) to Linux and get some good magnification.  And there
are lots of other possibilities.  Linux is extremely versatile,
and this will increase as time goes on.

> But there's an even worse fear in my mind, which is that the more
> Linux becomes popular the more graphical the applications and
> even the OS will become. So, will blind people have to fight that
> battle yet again? Or am I fearing a paper tiger?

There will be more of every kind of applications, both text and GUI
based.  Even now many will operate in either mode.  It is
inconceivable that the text interface could ever go away.  That
would break all kinds of Unix standards, and many programs, and
destroy the modular, small is beautiful,
patch-together-what-you-need character of Linux.  You can't even
boot a Linux machine normally without the standard text shell,
"sh", and many other text based utilities (or proprietary Unix
either for that matter).  So you don't have anything to worry
about.  People are still developing more and better text based
utilities at a breakneck pace, and improving the old classic ones.
I can't even keep track of what's happening any more, there's so
much of it rolling out every week.  Fortunately for you and I,
there are now a number of big web portals for Linux opening now
that track of all this stuff, with great new search technologies to
help us find what we need.

-- 
L. C. Robinson
reply to lcr@cyberhighway.net

People buy MicroShaft for compatibility, but get incompatibility and
instability instead.  This is award winning "innovation".  Find
out how MS holds your data hostage with "The *Lens*"; see
"CyberSnare" at http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html

Re: Graphical Linux

[Whistler]

I think you don'thave much to worry about the problem with windows is that
in order to do anything we were forced to be graphical that will never
happen to Linux or unix no matter how popular it gets.  While it is true
there will be much new graphical stuff we have to deal with and fight the
true power in linux is at the command line and there is no one out there
that is trying to totally do away with the command line like microsoft
was.

Mexico did put Linux in all there public schools which is great news
nothing to be affraid of.  

In fact as Xwindows gets more popular the more standard it will get the
more easy it will be for groups like Ultra sonics to write speech
aplications for xwin.  Unlike Microjunk we have access to the xwindows
source code and if there is something so wrong that our speech software
will not work then we can fix it.  Linux has a lot of growing to do for
people with disabilities but Linux is far more easy for developers to get
into the guts of and find what they need than microsoft ever was.

Ken /whistler

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Janina Sajka wrote:

> Hi:
> 
> The following little news snipet was in yesterday's Edupage, an online
> news digest about telecomm and computer things. It caught my interest
> because it says that the Mexican government is planning a mass
> distribution of this software to schools. 
> 
> Does anyone know anything about the implications here? I'm assuming that
> GUI under Linux is far from accessible in most cases--much worse than
> Microsoft Windows or IBM OS2. But there's an even worse fear in my mind,
> which is that the more Linux becomes popular the more graphical the
> applications and even the OS will become. So, will blind people have to
> fight that battle yet again? Or am I fearing a paper tiger?
> 
> 
> 				Janina Sajka, Director
> 				Information Systems Research & Development
> 				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
> 
> janina@afb.net
> 
> 
> ---
> Send your message for blinux-list to blinux-list@redhat.com
> Blinux software archive at ftp://leb.net/pub/blinux
> Blinux web page at http://leb.net/blinux
> To unsubscribe send mail to blinux-list-request@redhat.com
> with subject line: unsubscribe
> 

Graphical Linux

[Janina Sajka]

Oops. Forgot to paste the news item in. Sorry about that. Here it is.


************************************************************
Edupage, 4 March 1999.

GNOME DRESSES LINUX IN PRETTY CLOTHES
Supporters of the popular free operating system known as Linux (and
pronounced Linnux) have announced the development of a new user-friendly
graphical interface for that system.  Called Gnome, the interface was
developed by a software effort led by the Mexican programmer Miquel de Icaza
of the Universidad National Autonoma de Mexico, and is distributed with a
word processor, spreadsheet, data base, presentation manager, Web browser,
and e-mail.  Gnome stands for GNU Network Object Model Environment, and GNU
is an acronym that suggests that the software is "not Unix."  Linux has been
gaining steady acceptance in the corporate world, and this new development
will give it more credibility in the desktop market now dominated by
Microsoft's Windows operating systems.  De Icaza predicts that Gnome and
Linux will attract a strong international backing, and says that the Mexican
government is planning to distribute a million copies to schools.  MIT's
Richard Stallman, founder of the "free software" movement of the 1970s,
says, ""Fifteen years ago they said this was impossible.  They said this was
too large a task."  (New York Times 4 Mar 99)




				Janina Sajka, Director
				Information Systems Research & Development
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

janina@afb.net

Re: Graphical Linux

[David Poehlman]

if you are talking about n o m e I saw an article on it and I'd say we
have a fair chance of making it accessible given that the operating
system is so open.
-- 
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
Touching The Internet
ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman
http://poehlman.clark.net
mailto:poehlman@clark.net
voice 301-949-7599
Dynamic Solutions Inc.
Best of Service for your small business network needs
http://www.dnsolutions.com

Graphical Linux

[Janina Sajka]

Hi:

The following little news snipet was in yesterday's Edupage, an online
news digest about telecomm and computer things. It caught my interest
because it says that the Mexican government is planning a mass
distribution of this software to schools. 

Does anyone know anything about the implications here? I'm assuming that
GUI under Linux is far from accessible in most cases--much worse than
Microsoft Windows or IBM OS2. But there's an even worse fear in my mind,
which is that the more Linux becomes popular the more graphical the
applications and even the OS will become. So, will blind people have to
fight that battle yet again? Or am I fearing a paper tiger?


				Janina Sajka, Director
				Information Systems Research & Development
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

janina@afb.net