
In response to the devil's advocate: Let me clarify. I did not recommend
either software or hardware in this instance. This was done by a consultant
who has many years of experience in the field of voice recognition. I would
not presume to second guess that person's qualifications. The software was
loaded under the latest version of Win 95 on a Dell Pentium 233 with 128 meg
of RAM. However, I do have fourteen years of experience supporting people
using computers which leads me to _hypothesize_ that the application software
in question should carry a big warning label--particularly in light of the
fact that it is likely to be bought by individuals who might perhaps be more
vulnerable than average on account of their disabilities. As much as we would
like to blame Microsoft for all software problems it does seem to be
inappropriate and against logic in this instance. If the vast majority of
applications run rather well under NT and win 95 then the few that don't might
be deserving of suspicion.
--Bob
In a message dated 98-03-08 14:59:40 EST, you write:
<< Regarding the ethical considerations, I'm going to take a "devil's
advocate"
position -- I realize that you are asking the questions in good faith, and
they are questions which I have contemplated as well. But to have a good
argument, here are some counter-arguments:
a. Apparently you were not familiar with voice recognition software.
Was it ethical for you to (presumably) charge this person for doing work for
which you may not have been qualified?
Were you qualified to recommend an appropriate computer system and the
appropriate software for this RSI client? Is it around double the stated
minimums in CPU and memory?
>>