Mina

In my opinion, lack of accessibility is the main *real* argument against the widespread adoption of Free and Open Source Software.

I reckon, if, especially European, governments and institutions really are serious about digital sovereignty, they should invest serious money (I'm talking billions with "B") into that area.

#a11y #FOSS #DigitalSovereignty #EU

Jan 8 at 12:01pmWeb
Show threadMinaJan 8

And no:

That GnuIMP lacks a certain Photoshop® plugin, that LibreOffice might mess up a certain MS-Word® format or that your ego shooter hasn't yet been ported to Linux, are bullshit arguments.

That people can't use a program because there haven't been the necessary resources (or lack of awareness) to make it inclusive for all people is a strong no-no.

Show threadNot a Spring OnionJan 8

@mina The LibreOffice argument stems IMHO mainly from a certain panic (if the formatting is already messed up, what if there is text/data missing?) and a general "this doesn't look like the GUI I am used too".

Both things can be solved by "accomodating users", which means training, support, etc.

So this is a usability topic. And a big part of that is obviously accessibility.

Show threadUkeleleEricJan 8
@wakame @mina Since a big part of usability is giving options and variations to users, what better way for anyone in procurement to test for usability than checking its accessibility options, because, if they've gone to the effort of getting that right, the rest is likely to be right, too.
Show threadAgitatra 🚲🐻🌿🇪🇺🇺🇦Jan 8
@mina I don't think billions are necessary. I think of Affinity, an excellent suite for working with graphics and publishing. It was built as a competitor to Adobe CS, and sold for a reasonable onetime payment. It copied the Adobe original where it made sense and introduced some nice features. So, they definitely did not invest billions, IMHO more in the low millions area. Therefor I think some tens of millions would be enough with a motivated team AND no red tape. So with the EU we're doomed.
Show threadMinaJan 8

@agitatra

It's about the whole infrastructure, the desktop environments, the installers and especially the development tools.

Every € invested in that would be a far more sustainable investment, than trying to build a European Google, ChatGPT, Oracle or Facebook in the hands of European billionaires instead of US-American ones.

Money has no Motherland, anyway.

Show threadJörn FrankeJan 8
@mina I think investments make sense, but indeed a transparent strategy where the society can contribute to on where the investment should go would help. At the moment, there is very little data on what software is critical in organisations and private households. Additionally we need to shape an idea in which direction it should go. Everyone must help here.
Show threadJörn FrankeJan 8
@mina btw. please feel free to share your feedback on open source with the EC: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16213-European-Open-Digital-Ecosystems_en - European and non-European citizens can contribute
Show threadMarijke LuttekesJan 8

@mina Agreed! I've had this discussion a couple of times now where folks are like "Microsoft Bad, Linux Good", but failed to account for accessibility.

For example, I know screen reader users who primarily use Windows because it's the only OS that works for them, and they only use macOS (reluctantly) at times.

Installation and maintenance need to be quick and easy for everyone, and the OS needs to be usable for those who are not tech-savvy or disabled.

Show threadKerplunkJan 8

@mina

I reckon, if, especially European, governments and institutions really are serious about digital sovereignty, they should invest serious money (I'm talking billions with "B") into that area.

But with 100% binding stipulations,

Public Money Public Ownership.

No sale in whole or part to any non funding country or entity, that must include any shares.

Absolutely no sale outside of EU.