RE: Alternative validation tools.

On Fri, 2002-12-20 at 22:22, Access Systems wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Tim wrote:
> 
> > With all the time that is spent on great open source "free for all"
> > products on sites such as SourceForge, what do list members actually
> > think is the reason that no large scale "open-source" accessibility
> > validation tool exists.
> 
> probably because there needs to be enough folks interested in a project
> before it is done...accessiblity validation is apparently a project that
> is either low priority or of low interest in the community.

I would disagree with this. I don't think accessibility is low in
priority.

Primarily, tools like Bobby would not get overloaded and neither be
viable for a commercial company like Watchfire to own if there was
little interest in accessibility validation.

Secondly, the sheer amount of work on accessibility that has gone into
the Gnome Desktop Accessibility features, which is entirely open-source,
and won an accessibility award this year for the community effort.


> 
>  probably one of the major drawbacks of open source at this time is the
> lack of business software which is a catch 22, folks don't use open source
> because the lack of business software and business software isn't written
> because there are so few useres

This is slightly off-topic, but what is meant by "business software"? I
use the Linux OS to run a business and have no problem locating very
high quality software that suits my needs. 

> 
> heck it wasn't until just recently that we got decent open source
> accounting software.....

I still stand by the point that it is quite amazing that no open-source
accessibility software has been developed, and I cannot believe given
the dedication of the open-source community that the reasons above ring
true.

Regards, 

Tim

> 
> Bob
> 
> > By this I mean a tool that is developed in the true open-source way -
> > not by a for profit or not-for-profit organization, but by developers
> > not even connected geographically. 
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Chuck Hitchcock
> > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 9:06 PM
> > To: 'Jonathan Chetwynd'
> > Cc: 'WAI list'
> > Subject: RE: Alternative validation tools.
> > 
> > 
> > You are right, I did not describe my views.  We made a choice and no
> > longer have such rights.
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Jonathan Chetwynd
> > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 12:14 PM
> > To: chitchcock@cast.org
> > Cc: 'WAI list'
> > Subject: Re: Alternative validation tools.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Chuck,
> > 
> > You didn't describe your views on open source.
> > Have CAST signed away right to help develop such a product?
> > 
> > Jonathan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>    ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob                       
>     NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net       
>     NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers       
>     NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right 
> *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
> THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
> privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
> above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
> soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
> communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.  Thanks
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 22 December 2002 13:02:52 UTC