Hi, Gregory: Oh, you didn't do anything wrong with how you referred to "standards." You appeared to use the term in the way that I would expect most people think of it. I am sensitive on this because I work on standards development. There are standards that are approved following the rigorous processes of some standards body such as ANSI, or ISO, or even our own FSG. Usually, these include conformance testing and certification of conformance, together with indemnity. Steep stuff. Organizations like the W3C and DAISY do not create standards in the same sense. In fact, the W3C carefully avoids using the word, and calls it's technology "recommendations" and "guidelines." Then there's the very loose way that the term is used--if enough people do a particular thing, then it's a "standard." This last definition rankles me, because it's all about mussle and market dominance. Yet, those who own these technologies love to call them "standards," because the term conveys the aura of respectability and independent, unbiased approval of some standards body. I particularly dislike sharing the term with companies who dominate without necessarily meeting user needs and whose technology cannot be improved by user action. An iso standard, an FSG standard, or a W3C or DAISY recommendation can be improved. Anyone who wants to participate can, though doing so with ISO is rather expensive. At least there's a process for addressing issues. There is no such process with proprietary technologies. It's all about getting the ownder to change things--and hoping that they'll do a decent job of it. Gregory Nowak writes: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >From: Janina Sajka <janina at rednote.net > >To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup at braille.uwo.ca > >Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:19:39 -0400 > >Subject: Re: which program in Linux? > > >Hmmm, I would say we painted very similar pictures in fairly different > >ways. The only real disagreement I see is in how we use the word > >"standards," and that's an issue very much peripheral to the present > >discussion. > > > > Janina > For the sake of clarity, is anyone up to the task of defining "standards" as it applies to this thread? No, since I fear I wouldn't do an adequate job, I'm not volunteering (grin). > > Greg > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Speakup mailing list > >Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > >!DSPAM:431ef701288522044811595! > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup -- Janina Sajka Phone: +1.202.494.7040 Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC http://www.CapitalAccessibility.Com Bringing the Owasys 22C screenless cell phone to the U.S. and Canada. Go to http://www.ScreenlessPhone.Com to learn more. Chair, Accessibility Workgroup Free Standards Group (FSG) janina at freestandards.org http://a11y.org
