Thread Subject: Re: "closed software"

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:09 PM

Jim ­ I see this is a repost from the same email sent on Dec 22nd. My
apologies for not responding back then.

We¹re starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the iPod could
be characterized as follows:

1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware, since there is a port
that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device (ie. Rock Box).
2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Apple is an example of closed
software, since it does not allow 3rd party application software or
assistive technology software to be loaded in addition to the existing
software that it ships with.

I think you¹re accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod hardware and
PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod is analogous to purchasing a PC
with Windows loaded, but then reformatting the hard drive and loading Linux
instead. Same PC ­ different operating systems. So, in terms of
definition, I think you would still have to characterize the iPod¹s software
as closed (but its hardware as open).

So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the combination
of both? When the federal government purchases iPods for their employees to
use for training purposes, I assume they are thinking of the latter. If a
Department bids out and receives 500 computer running Windows, they don¹t
expect some people to remove Windows and load Linux instead (or visa versa).
With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction manuals
written that say things like:

³To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the Music menu, select
Playlists, and choose ?Module 1¹².

I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:

³If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod, load the new
operating system called Rock Box by connecting a USB cable from your iPod to
your computer that is running the Rock Box installation software (which
you¹ll need to obtain on-line), restore the content (and try to keep it in
the same order), and then find Module 1. And by the way, since there is no
text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to find
?Module 1² by listening to each letter pronounced ³m², ³o², ³d², and so on.

This just doesn¹t seem like an equitable solution for people with
disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for training, it should
be accessible as-is, or with the addition of AT. Right now it isn¹t, so I
would call that ³closed² (ie. Not accessible on its own, and not possible to
add AT that makes it accessible to people with disabilities).

-Randy

PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent announcement of the iPhone,
which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think) is open, and
completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast technology
changes...?

>
> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
> "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>

> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed software", even
> given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock Box" as alternative interface.
> I don't see how this is so.
>
> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from Apple, so they are not
> "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could somehow lock out all software
> changes that did not come thorough Apple themselves, but they appear not to
> have done that. Even in that case, the "closedness" would be by policy, not
> by technological feasibility.
>
> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software solution to some
> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming that the
> original iPod interface can be restored somehow, doesn't that make the iPod
> almost like a PC, able to run with or without a screen reader, not like a
> product
>
> ***********
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> skype jimtobias
> www.inclusive.com
>
>
>>
>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/closed products
>> subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>
>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one such example.
>>
>> -Randy
>>>
>>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
>>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>
>>
>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be converging on the
>>> opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a category. In this context,
>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed. Can someone please give
>>> me an example, or a further explanation, of what closed software might be?
>>>
>>> ***********
>>> Jim Tobias
>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>> skype jimtobias
>>> www.inclusive.com
>>>
>>>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University