From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by befuddled.reisers.ca (Postfix, from userid 65534) id ECF6C1EF6BD; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:53:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mta1.math.wisc.edu (mta1.math.wisc.edu [144.92.166.23]) by befuddled.reisers.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998491EF69B for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:53:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta1.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89FF49D4B6 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:53:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mta1.math.wisc.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta1.math.wisc.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z8BhVBVOO7d2 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:53:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mta1.math.wisc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta1.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE1849D4AE for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:53:45 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on mta1.math.wisc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.0 required=6.5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from mailhost.math.wisc.edu (erdos.math.wisc.edu [144.92.166.25]) by mta1.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:53:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [144.92.166.19] (vv507j.math.wisc.edu [144.92.166.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhost.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CA6F420101 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:53:45 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <543BF582.1010107@math.wisc.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:53:38 -0500 From: "John G. Heim" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." Subject: Re: speakup in the kernel References: <86a956i23h.fsf@vibrator.pk5001z> <20141009125200.GI1044@opera.rednote.net> <86ppe1gyed.fsf@vibrator.pk5001z> <5436B2E4.5060306@math.wisc.edu> <5436B66A.4060600@tysdomain.com> <5436BD4A.1090208@math.wisc.edu> <21053.1412882630@ccs.covici.com> <5436EA36.5010105@math.wisc.edu> <20141011074623.GB2692@type> In-Reply-To: <20141011074623.GB2692@type> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 X-BeenThere: speakup@linux-speakup.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:53:59 -0000 On 10/11/14 02:46, Samuel Thibault wrote: > John G. Heim, le Thu 09 Oct 2014 15:04:06 -0500, a écrit : >> I once asked on the kernel developers list what the right way to >> access the serial port was. If speakup does it wrong, that implies there is >> a right way, what is that? > > "Doing it wrong" doesn't mean that the "right way" is already available. > The difficulty here is that the right way doesn't exist yet, even if the > kernel developers have an idea of how it would look like. It's a matter > of getting the time to do it. Well, I've come to understand during the course of this discussion that speakup isn't as stable as I thought. It looks like getting answers to questions about speakup is pretty difficult under any circumstances unless you press the right buttons. In a way I have to take back my comments about the disrespect toward speakup that I saw expressed on the kernel developers list. However, I think the kernel developers still don't get that accessibility isn't like other features. A developer has no ethical obligation to support some cranky old piece of hardware or to support software features no matter how popular they are. For example, I don't think the cdrecord developer had any ethical obligation to resolve the licensing issues that lead debian to fork cdrecord to wodim. I mean, I think that was crazy but not unethical. On the other hand, it is unethical for someone, even a volunteer, to exclude a portion of the population who have no option in the matter. I only wish I could see a computer monitor and use linux like everyone else. I understand that as a practical matter, sometimes a developer has to say, "I can't do accessibility here. It's just too hard." But that should be an absolute last resort. I don't sense that from the linux kernel developers or from the open source community as a whole. I think most open source developers think of accessibilit like we're asking them to support our old 486 hardware or complaining that our favorite hot key has gone away. I know every change they make probably creates a deluge of that kind of complaint. But accessibility just isn't the same as those complaints. I think most developers would say, "I'm just a volunteer. How could I possibly be doing anything unethical?" But if you're volunteering at a Klu Klux Klan rally, you're doing something unethical. If you're writing software, even for free, that precludes it's use by blind people, you're doing something unethical. A developer needs to do what is often referred to as "best effort" with respect to accessibility or it's wrong. And I don't think the kernel developers have given their best effort with respect to getting speakup into the kernel.