It's not quite StarOffice, not quite OpenOffice...

Posted Sep 19, 2007 16:00 UTC (Wed) by philipstorry (subscriber, #45926)
In reply to: It's not quite StarOffice, not quite OpenOffice... by chaneau
Parent article: IBM's Lotus Symphony

Good example!

This is partly why IBM have joined OOo - OOo made better progress on import/export filters for Word than they themselves did, because they had more people working on fixing the bugs.

(Whereas, IIRC, Symphony has better SmartSuite import filters, because IBM have access to better SmartSuite documentation. Funny, that...)

The problem for IBM is now that in some areas their customers require, they're behind, whereas in others they're ahead.

You've demonstrated the import filters very graphically - but OOo is not acceptable for use with many organisations because it doesn't work with screen readers, and is therefore not accessible for the partially sighted. That may not be a huge priority for most individuals, but it's a deal-breaker for many organisations...

In the long run, having both OOo and Symphony should allow some parity to come in between the two apps, meaning that both will become more acceptable to all.

Accessibility in OpenOffice...

Posted Sep 19, 2007 16:31 UTC (Wed) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] (1 responses)

Not true, there are several screen readers that work with OpenOffice.org. It's my understanding that it's better on GNOME than Windows, because GNOME has a better accessibility framework than Windows.

What's sad is that, according to many leaders for the disabled, Microsoft has not been helpful in accessibility of Office. It's only due to the herculian efforts of others that people can even attempt to use Microsoft Office while blind. In contrast, the OpenOffice.org people have worked hard at it, making as much as possible accessible.

Accessibility in OpenOffice...

Posted Sep 20, 2007 10:35 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

In Soviet Microsoft all the end users work for YOU!
(at least when it comes to usability, apparently)