RedHat and accessibility

RedHat and accessibility

[Jason Fayre]

Hello Everyone,
I have been a Linux user since 1993.  I recently got my RHCE certification
from RedHat.
I agree that RedHat has put some effort into making Linux more accessible.
However, I have a serious problem with the way RedHat handles
accessibility issues with regards to their education devision.

When the company I work for decided that our team needed to be RHCE
certified, I had considerable trouble convincing RedHat to let me take the
certification test.
I am a braille display user and have been for years.  RedHat would not
permit me to use BRLTTY to take their certification exam.  There reasoning
was that by putting brltty on te testing system, I was "modifying the
operating system" and therefore they were unable to certify me.
After much discussion that went as high as one of their VPs, they did
permit me to use a serial console to take the test.  One of the
"solutions" they proposed was that I take the test as a "dry run".  If I
passed it, they wouldn't certify me.  Rather, they would make me take the
test again once they had some accessibility features in the OS.
Obviously, this was complete unacceptable.  As I said earlier, they did
let me take the test through a serial console, but this is most
deffinately not my preferred wayh of doing things.

The other major issue I have with RH is there complete unwillingness to
provide electronic coppies of their courseware.  The only reason I passed
the RHCE test is that I have several years of Linux experience.  They did
let me have access to a server that had the electronic text on it while in
the class.  However, they would not let me take a copy of the docs home to
study.  This is eaven after I offered to sign an NDA against copying the
material.  They make you sign three non-disclosure agreements in order to
take the certification test.
I will shortly be taking another course from RedHat.  There policy on
documentation has not changed at all.  Once again, they will not let me
have equal access to the course documentation.

I realize that I am ranting here, but I feel that this needs to be said.
I won't deny that RH has done some good things for the Linux accessibility
cause, but they need to incorporate this into there corporate policies as
well.

Re: RedHat and accessibility

[Buddy Brannan]

Uhh.

NDA's are evil. Full stop. 

WTF is Redhat, purportedly a champion of (at least) the open source
concept, and one would think as well the free software concept, doing
making people sign NDA's?! That's really wacked!
-- 
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV/3   | "And if the ground yawned,
Phone: (814) 455-7333     | I'd step to the side and say,
Email: davros@ycardz.com  | "Hey ground! I'm nobody's lunch!"
http://www.ycardz.com/    | --Eddie From Ohio

Re: RedHat and accessibility

[Darrell Shandrow]

Hi Buddy,

Well, since I intend no piracy, I have no trouble signing NDAs, as long as
it means I will indeed gain the access I need.  I just signed one for Sybex
3 days ago to get the MS Word version of their CCNA Study Guide...  I take a
very reasonable approach; I'll do anything that is reasonable as long as the
company in question is working with me cooperatively towards accessibility.
But, in Jason's case, it seems RedHat was actually trying to take steps to
actively interfere with a blind person's progress in his life as a human
being, let alone a qualified Linux tech.  Hmmm, how to effectively teach
RedHat a useful lesson in access that will result in positive change?  This
was a pretty aggregious example to me.  Even Microsoft is better than RedHat
here!!!

Hmmm, one idea...  Maybe we should start with RedHat corporate management
staff?  If we get no results, start a letter-writing campaign to all the
authors and teams who created all the various open-source packages RedHat
provides in order to explain how RedHat is violating open-source principles
and acting in a detrimental manner towards a subsection of its customers and
users?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Buddy Brannan" <davros@ycardz.com>
To: <blinux-list@redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: RedHat and accessibility


> Uhh.
>
> NDA's are evil. Full stop.
>
> WTF is Redhat, purportedly a champion of (at least) the open source
> concept, and one would think as well the free software concept, doing
> making people sign NDA's?! That's really wacked!
> --
> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV/3   | "And if the ground yawned,
> Phone: (814) 455-7333     | I'd step to the side and say,
> Email: davros@ycardz.com  | "Hey ground! I'm nobody's lunch!"
> http://www.ycardz.com/    | --Eddie From Ohio
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list

Re: RedHat and accessibility

[Buddy Brannan]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:30:36PM -0700, Darrell Shandrow wrote:
> Hi Buddy,
> 
> Well, since I intend no piracy, I have no trouble signing NDAs, as long as
> it means I will indeed gain the access I need. 

Doesn't make them any less evil. If you believe in the free software
concept...what is piracy? What, we're not allowed to share? (See
speeches by RMS...we could argue about this till the cows come home.)
While I will use what I have to in order to get useful work done (even
if that means using something proprietary), I will *always* use a free
alternative over a proprietary one, or even an open alternative over a
proprietary one. I will, in short, use proprietary software only when
I cannot get useful work done because a usable free alternative is not
currently available. 
 I just signed one for Sybex
> 3 days ago to get the MS Word version of their CCNA Study Guide...

EGADS! Two evil things in one go!!!! Don't they have their text in
something that's, oh, I dunno, not a proprietary standard?!
Jeez. ... The world is a-changing...and for the better, IMO...as more
free software gets into the main stream. (harrumpf) 

  I take a
> very reasonable approach; I'll do anything that is reasonable as long as the
> company in question is working with me cooperatively towards
accessibility.

Define reasonable. For that matter, define unreasonable in a similar
context. I'd say Jason's case was about as unreasonable as it
gets. Now is signing a NDA in order to get study material reasonable?
Would you have to sign such an agreement in order to get hardcopy
print? After all, you could easily enough run the thing off on a
copier and share it with your friends, couldn't you? What's the diff?
And what exactly are the restrictions? 

> But, in Jason's case, it seems RedHat was actually trying to take steps to
> actively interfere with a blind person's progress in his life as a human
> being, let alone a qualified Linux tech.  Hmmm, how to effectively teach
> RedHat a useful lesson in access that will result in positive
> change? 

Here, I think we can agree. Someone's got the wrong idea. Again...this
is a different world, and I think RH (insofar as the suits in charge
of certification, docs, training, whatever are concerned) heeds to
understand this. 

 This
> was a pretty aggregious example to me.  Even Microsoft is better than RedHat
> here!!!

...which should really tell us something, folks. 

> 
> Hmmm, one idea...  Maybe we should start with RedHat corporate management
> staff?  If we get no results, start a letter-writing campaign to all the
> authors and teams who created all the various open-source packages RedHat
> provides in order to explain how RedHat is violating open-source principles
> and acting in a detrimental manner towards a subsection of its customers and
> users?

Maybe. While I appreciate Redhat's moves in the right direction
insofar as accessibility goes, I think I'll keep using Debian. :)

-- 
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV/3   | "And if the ground yawned,
Phone: (814) 455-7333     | I'd step to the side and say,
Email: davros@ycardz.com  | "Hey ground! I'm nobody's lunch!"
http://www.ycardz.com/    | --Eddie From Ohio

Re: RedHat and accessibility

[L. C. Robinson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 4342 bytes --]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Buddy Brannan wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:30:36PM -0700,
> Darrell Shandrow wrote:

> ... EGADS! Two evil things in one go!!!! Don't they
> have their text in

Perfectly within their rights.  Remember that free
software wasn't built for software vendors to make
money, but for the end users, and wasn't meant to
provide any kind of business model.  But
supporting and training people costs time and
money, and those who do so on a more than casual
basis deserve whatever return the free market will
deliver: such businesses are our allies.

As you will see below, and in my reposted message
in the attachment, Red Hat actually deserves a pat
on the back for unusually ethical behavior, unlike
certain other well known vendors....

> ... I'd say Jason's case was about as
> unreasonable as it gets. ...

> > But, in Jason's case, it seems RedHat was
> > actually trying to take steps to actively
> > interfere with a blind person's progress in
> > his life as a human being, let alone a
> > qualified Linux tech.

I can certainly see how such things would seem
unfair, but the issue is really something else
entirely, and the solution lies in an entirely
different conception of the problem.  This issue
has been discussed before, and rather than cause
those who have already read my longish post on
it to wade through it again, I have reposted it
as an attachment.  The rest of my comments will
assume an understanding of it's contents.

> > Hmmm, how to effectively teach RedHat a useful
> > lesson in access that will result in positive
> > change? 

Let us rather praise them for being ethical, and
work "out of this box" with Red Hat for a sensible
work around, in terms of appropriate disclaimers,
and some kind of letter or award of a properly
labeled (as subjective) evaluation of alternative
competency, and a publicly posted explanation of
the nature of the process, with it's limitations
for disabled people, in non-technical terms
employers can understand clearly.  Handled
properly, this is an opportunity for Red Hat to
advocate the legitimacy of their testing process,
even while plugging their support of disabled
people -- a win win proposition.

> > ... was a pretty aggregious example to me.
> > Even Microsoft is better than RedHat here!!!

The grossly unethical nature of that other
corporation's marketing of their expensive and
fairly worthless certification has been discussed
to death in other forums (do net search for
details).

> > Hmmm, one idea...  Maybe we should start with
> > RedHat corporate management staff?

I imagine that they would be happy to work with a
reasonable approach (one that does not involve
demands for unethical representations beyond the
reasonable limitations of legitimate testing
technology).  Note that the problem is a technical
one, and that it cannot be solved by ideology or
advocacy; real world statistical limitations
cannot be ethically ignored.  You wouldn't want
them to cheapen their product with phony claims
that knowledgable people would spot, thereby
making your alternative certification, however
subjective, and everyone else's, suspect (remember
that an employer is ultimately going to make a
subjective evaluation of who to hire -- a lot of
this testing and certification stuff is really an
interviewer cop-out anyway).  Hopefully the
present economic situation won't prevent Red Hat
from devoting sufficient resources to a
work-around: other posts would seem to indicate
that they were willing to look at the problem.

> > ... in order to explain how RedHat is
> > violating open-source principles and acting
> > in...

Hopefully, with my other attached post, you will
be able to see why "Open source principles" have
absolutely nothing to do with this issue.  But
again, based on other posts, we have more than
hints that Red Hat would be highly amenable to
addressing this problem in a reasonable way.  That
way will not, should not, involve giving standard
certification for non-standard, modified tests.
 
LCR

-- 
L. C. Robinson
reply to no_spam+munged_lcr@onewest.net.invalid

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

[-- Attachment #2: previous post Re: unethical testing --]
[-- Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 5953 bytes --]

From lcr@rupin.localnet Fri Oct  4 16:50:17 2002
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:59:47 -0700 (MST)
From: L. C. Robinson <lcr@rupin.localnet>
Reply-To: no_spam+munged_lcr@onewest.net.invalid
To: blinux-list@redhat.com
Subject: Re: RHCE certification

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Jason Fayre wrote:

> Is anyone on this list RHCE certified?   As part of my job, I
> have been requested to obtain RHCE certification.  I am a
> little concerned about the amount of X-based content on the
> tests.

I assume that this implies that there is known to be a
significant amount of X related stuff?

Any test that claims to have any kind of real general legitimacy
in a scientific sense must be statistically validated under an
appropriate set of assumptions, against two known and similar
classes (populations, to use the jargon) of testees, with the
composition of one of them already known, and serving as a
standard (already competent Red Hat linux computer professionals,
in this case).  Any variation from that class, for an individual
testee, in practical use, invalidates the test, NOT the testee,
and the test should not be administered.  Any competent tester
should know this (but they often don't).

WARNING: Stepping up to soapbox:

There is a vast multi-billion dollar industry in selling all
manner of tests of various things, professional competency being
only one of them.  Very few of the tests they sell are even
poorly validated in the above sense (expensive and time
consuming), but the sales pitch would indicate otherwise.  In
other words, most such tests are a scam, pure and simple, and the
employer is being cheated (not to mention the employee, existing
or potential).  In short, taken as a whole, the "standardized"
testing industry is a scam enterprise.  Of course, there are
exceptions, however rare.  Selling and administering such junk
tests is highly unethical, and in many cases should be treated as
a felony, and criminally prosecuted in court.  I think that one
day that will happen, as the critics gain ground.

Aside: This does not necessarily apply to Red Hat, whose
certification program I know nothing about.  I like the company.

What does this mean to people with any kind of disability?  As
most of you know, there are infinite variations of disabilities,
even in the same general type, and in the impact of such.  It is
impractical or impossible to validate or to construct tests for
disabled people that really have any comparative meaning.  That
means that the tests that they put people through at rehab
agencies and the like are _always_ a scam, if related to the
disability in any way, even in the unlikely event that they had
any real validity for a "normal population".  And the
"professional" testers that administer them are either
incompetent or scam artists, usually both (you'd have to be
pretty stupid to not suspect something was wrong after a while,
if hired and maybe even trained to do this -- but people put
mental blinders on themselves).  But the people paying for the
tests don't notice, because they aren't there (usually taxpayers
or upper management), so the agency can still collect.

<stepping off soapbox>

> I will be taking the solaris tests soon, and those really don't
> have much to do with X.  Any input would be appreciated.

Well, sometimes you have to jump through the hoops, however
stupid, but the problem here is so obvious that you should be
able to talk to your employer and the Red Hat people and at least
ask them to make a special test for you, with substitutions of
appropriate questions for functionality equivalent to the GUI
stuff (non-validated, of course), in the text mode or braille and
speech friendly area.  You could also ask them to accept recast
questions and answers, where you tell them how you would
accomplish the same thing with other tools (with extra time
allowances for essay answers).  BTW, even delivering non-GUI
questions from such a test, in an alternate accessible format,
would invalidate the test, statistically speaking.

They should see that as a fair request, but, no doubt, will
quickly realize that the work and expertise involved in making or
grading such a test would be prohibitive (they would have to come
to someone like you to check on good substitutes for many or most
questions), and the outcome subjective.  A good boss will quickly
realize, without prompting, that work experience is a better
indicator anyway, and that they already know where you're at.
Even in a "normal population" (to use the jargon), experience is
a better indicator -- after all, that is what they have to
validate tests against, if they are to be anything but a scam.

Now, you know, and any good IT manager with Unix experience
knows, that the GUI can never approach the functionality and
versatility of what you have to know in text mode terms to do the
same type of thing, and in the ability to look up and digest
technical documentation, and the like.  The fact is that blind
computer professionals in *ix environments are going to be more
competent than their counterparts, on average, probably
dramatically.  That doesn't mean there aren't some things that
they can't do very well, or as easily, like supporting GUI only
users in certain special contexts.  But those cases would usually
be a waste of your expertise anyway, and probably a real drag
(your sighted counterparts may envy you your "out" in this
sense).

I think most of us would be interested to hear how all this pans
out.  I know I would.

Good luck, LCR

-- 
L. C. Robinson
reply to no_spam+munged_lcr@onewest.net.invalid

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