by Stephen Downes
Dec 30, 2014
Doing Better With Open Access Advocacy
The Scholarly Kitchen,
Jill O'Neill argues that Open Access advocates shouldn't casually appear to the needs of the visually impaired as an argument in favour of open access. It never bothered them before, she says - "such incompatibility hadn’t surfaced in earlier open access manifestos — Budapest, Berlin, Bethesda" — and now seems a convenient issue to use to make the point. This comes in response to criticisms of Nature's new 'open access' policy, which allows reading but disallows downloading or printing or even simple cut-and-paste for quotations. The criticisms, she said, "were terse notations, lacking explanations as to whether this was due to incompatibility issues on the particular platform or caused by some other flaw in the system." Well open access can't change the past and revise the documents she quotes. And it's false that access for the visually impaired is a recent issue for OA advocates. Here is Michael Geist making the argument, for example. Image: Odori.
This newsletter is sent only at the request of subscribers. If you would like to unsubscribe,
Know a friend who might enjoy this newsletter? Feel free to forward OLDaily to your colleagues. If you received this issue from a friend and would like a free subscription of your own,
you can join our mailing list. Click here to subscribe.