[Accessibility] resident evil

[Eric S. Johansson]

 On 7/30/2010 9:38 AM, Chris Hofstader wrote:
> All,
>
> I think that everyone on both sides of the free software priorities debate has 
> had the opportunity to participate and express their views. I think that all 
> points of view have been adequately represented and that we are seeing nothing 
> more than repetition and argument for the sake of argument. Therefore, if 
> anyone posts to this list on either side of the debate (excepting rms who is 
> my boss and can over-rule me <smile>) after noon EST, I will change the list 
> to a moderated status and start rejecting messages on this subject.

good thing I read my messages this morning. :-) I have to file comments about 
how to move forward. They're consistent with free software principles of nonfree 
software exclusion. I'm trying to think outside the box and find ways of 
accommodating accessibility needs first, free software second.

Resident evil I:

Build/find a new home for developers willing to build speech driven user 
environments and, under the principle that accessibility comes first and nonfree 
components are acceptable as interim solution while the accessibility apartment 
is under construction. At the soonest possible moment, nonfree components will 
be replaced with free components.

from a practical perspective, this means using NaturallySpeaking and integrating 
it with free software tools such as Emacs so that disabled developers can 
contribute to the project or even make a living.

Resident evil II:

Jonathan Swift inspired me to suggest this. Build accessibility framework 
complete with integration with NaturallySpeaking but keep it completely nonfree 
until the day that the free software foundation releases a functional equivalent 
to NaturallySpeaking. We would put in writing the pledge that on that day our 
software will become free in every way the free software foundation considers 
important.

I find this idea attractive because it may be a way that we can give disabled 
developers sufficient work that they can live and have a decent life. We could 
fund a support center. We could fund training seminars across the country. We 
could make it possible to spread the word and give injured people some measure 
of control back in their lives.

I'm sure this modest proposal might get some people upset and they might react 
to it like we are eating babies but I assure you that  parts of it are 
tongue-in-cheek. I am serious about why I find accessibility attractive. A 
separate home does make sense so that both important principles of supporting 
the disabled now and making incremental progress to a completely free future.



*thank you Chris* and finished with eight minutes to spare