I will have to see if I still have the article, but I found one recently listing all of the places where indeed Linux is in use, perhaps under the hood, but in use all the same.
I'm not referring to embedded devices in which Linux is usually what's under the hood. For the purposes of this discussion I've been focusing on the personal desktop computer OS experience, which is dominated by Microsoft, followed by Apple, then off in the distance all the Linux distros and implementations combined. I consider ChromeOS one of these "under the hood" situations where the user is unaware of the Linux underneath, OLPC is another. Collectively still low single-digits installed base.
It's unfortunate but matches my observation, where in places like China people will prefer pirated Windows over legitimately acquired Linux. As beautiful as attempts such as Deepin certainly are, they have an uphill battle to be mainstream. And if someone is making a hardware accessibility device that requires an OS driver, they're more likely to pay attention to the 80+% on one platform compared to the 5% that comprises a dozen or more "mainstream" implementations.
still, it would likely surprise you just how many access related projects exist.
It wouldn't surprise me at all. But it's all relative.
Windows for many continues to carry quite the access price tag, the third party things needed to achieve inclusion when working with windows, depending on the individual, can get close to $10k, and one still has to deal with problems.
I don't doubt that for a moment. The open source community has made great strides but that work has its limits. But of all the "things" that are needed to make a Windows box accessible, how many of them are unavailable for Linux at any price?
For the developers working in Linux, there is an entire blindness group for Python for example, the thought was to cut down the cost, while building in inclusion from the code up...or in theory at least.
That's not Linux specific then. Most things done in Python will also work under Windows.
> the server side the story is totally flipped, but on the desktop Linux is
> for enthusiasts, software developers, other power users and not much
> beyond.
Again, I respect your experience. still, again, you might be quite surprised how much energy is spent by individuals who, seeking inclusive access, and having the background, spend time and energy building Linux distributions for populations who have been largely ignored by Microsoft,
Oh I get that. And it's not just physical accessibility. Minority-language communities around the world struggle for the ability to consume and create on Windows. Some have indeed found Linux to be an easier path for custom development, especially since modification can be done without vendor permission. But many just suffer through Windows because of other things lacking on Linux.
My experience in accessibility projects isn't extensive but it's not zero. In a former life I spent the better part of a year working on a major project collaborating alongside Jutta Treviranus from Canada's _other_ IDRC, the Inclusive Design Research Centre at OCAD. Working with her and her team gave me some unexpected but welcome enlightenment into this world that most of IT ignores. It was in my work with her that I also reached a conclusion that as bad as Windows support is for accessibility, the open source world is steps behind that. I genuinely hope the situation has improved in the years since I worked on that project, but I remain to be convinced.
> Personally I think in this case web accessibility issues are in the hands
> of the browser maker rather than the OS, anyway.
Evan,
Forgive me if My assumption here is incorrect. Yet your sentence above suggests you may not fully understand just what is meant by access, or what adaptive technology actually provides.
Do I _fully_ understand what is meant by access? Likely not since I
haven't myself had to depend upon non-mainstream accessibility. Once upon a time I was charged with testing client websites against the W3C accessibility guidelines; that was not one of my most memorable assignments and I don't envy those still fighting those battles.
Here, I was limiting myself to the issues in the specific discussion we were having in the thread, which was about accessibility deficiencies in the Ontario government website and its document-distribution facility. The site was making assumptions about the user's browser that rendered the experience inaccessible to many and insecure to all. My point was simply that THIS particular issue was one of browser and website and web standards, the underlying OS has little relevance. I was making no comment on general accessibility of the OS or its own user interface; very often the browser and OS have very different ideas of the UI and are in conflict, especially when they are perceived to come from competing sources. Regardless of OS or browser, a great deal of the web is broken and nearly unusable by those needing accessibility assistance beyond a standard installation. Windows can be blamed for many awful things, but not the brokenness and access-hostile nature of so much of the Web.
(It could be argued that in the past a significant amount of this breakage came from sites needing to be compatible with Internet Explorer, but that is no longer the case.)