France is rolling out Visio, a homegrown secure videoconferencing platform, to all government employees by 2027.

[androcat@toot.cat]

@i47i @Yoshi

And users will hate using those AI chatbots exactly as much as they already hate the MS-based chatbots.

Value for money.

[elasticsoul@mastodon.social]

@i47i

Hey #Canada (and everyone non-US), the French police did this. What are our plans

"TIMELINE:
• 2005: Migrated from MS Office to OpenOffice
• 2008: Started Ubuntu desktop deployment (GendBuntu)
• 2014: Majority migration complete
• 2024: 97% of workstations running Linux (103,164 computers!)"

#Canada #cdnpoli #libreoffice #Linux #Ubuntu #ElbowsUp

[yoshi@toot.community]

@i47i I should have known there are AI chatbots for these sorts of "lookup" tasks. A system that can assist from simple newbie questions to more advanced users would be very helpful. The Linux world needs to better market these AI support systems. For example Linux Mint could "push" regular tips to users. I spent nearly 40 years in high tech from Radio Shack TRS-80 to huge VAX 11/780 systems but the current tech baffles me in many ways. Thanks to you and androcat for the tips.

@androcat

[yoshi@toot.community]

@androcat The "hate" could be a strong aversion to not knowing how and where their data are used. At least, that's why I look askance at anything MS or any other multi-billion dollar companies.

@i47i

[androcat@toot.cat]

@Yoshi @i47i

The trick really is to make it as transparent as possible.

Check if the question fits with a FAQ entry.
If yes: Link to FAQ and check if that resolves.
If any no: Go to ticket creation process (or live human chat if available)

People absolutely hate being given the "well-meaning runaround" that LLMs excel at. It's a waste of time and everyone knows it innately.

(And yes, the steps involved could just be a script, that's the general pattern for all things LLM - if they are good at it, it could be a script instead).

[yoshi@toot.community]

@androcat My take is biased by my level of understanding. I classify myself as "knows enough to be dangerous." The run around is about the same as one gets from clueless/powerless human support staff. I tried to get a refund from a human, it was a circle jerk of the first order.

@i47i

[androcat@toot.cat]

@Yoshi

Oh absolutely, but the human runaround happens because the human hasn't been empowered to perform the task (dark patterns).

The runaround with LLMs happen because they don't really understand anything and so aren't able to recognize what their own limits are.

If you ask them to do A, they will answer with a likely answer to someone asked to do A, "Yes, I will do that right now" - even if they do not actually have the API hookups to perform the action. A brain-dead yes-man.

@i47i

[yoshi@toot.community]

@androcat To the end-user, a runaround is a runaround, regardless of how it came to be. For me, with some level of understanding, I'd prefer a quick answer I can "fine tune" vs a slow answer that may still flawed.

@i47i

[i47i@hachyderm.io]

@Yoshi @androcat

I hate customer service chatbots as much as everyone else does. We're stuck with them, and I've had to learn how to work with them since there's simply no other option anymore. Many firms have moved to Messenger, WhatsApp, even Telegram for support.

But @androcat, your point about transparency is exactly right, and I just experienced it done well.

My bank recently changed their system to do precisely what you described: the chatbot does a quick FAQ check (and the LLM is actually quite effective at this), and if that doesn't resolve it, immediate escalation to a callback system - no waiting on hold, no runaround. A real human calls you back within minutes.

It respects your time instead of trapping you in conversation loops. The chatbot handles what it's actually good at (matching questions to FAQs), then gets out of the way for human support.

So it CAN work when designed with user needs in mind rather than just cost-cutting. The technology isn't the problem - it's whether companies have the will to implement it properly.

[mihamarkic@mastodon.social]

@i47i Slovenia? You sure? We don't even distinguish Word from word processor app.

[androcat@toot.cat]

@i47i @Yoshi

Yeah, everything Pattern Recognition flavored is pretty good.
Everything actually generative (let alone Agentive) is utter horsecrap.

[tomstoneham@dair-community.social]

@i47i
"The Tchap code is publicly available and is based on the Matrix protocol. The development of the application thus benefits from advances in the Matrix community, in terms of functional improvement and security."

But how do they *give back* to the @matrix #Matrix Foundation and Community?

[number6@fosstodon.org]

@i47i

Hard to believe Microsoft didn't trademark the name "Visio" inside France.

I see Dassault Systèmes listed as a contributor.

Reminds me that the one area in which the U.S. is dependent on European technology is CAD. Boeing and thus most other aerospace companies use CATIA and Solidworks for their primary modeling tools.

[i47i@hachyderm.io]

@mihamarkic

You’re right—my initial claim about Slovenia was....

While Slovenia is part of the EU’s Digital Commons EDIC initiative, a 2025 report shows no systematic open-source adoption and a low Digital Sovereignty Index score (13.33). Participation in EU groups doesn’t equal meaningful domestic action. Thanks for the correction.

[number6@fosstodon.org]

@i47i

It would be ironic if there were no strong alternatives to MicroSoft Visio (tm).

I suppose Inkscape, though maybe not quite the same.

[tomstoneham@dair-community.social]

@i47i The partners using Teams/Zoom etc is a big issue. The beauty if Jitsi is that they don't need to install any software to use it (assuming they have a browser!), so you can ask them to switch to it for your meeting *whatever* their institutional policy.

[mihamarkic@mastodon.social]

@i47i I wish it was different but that is the product of Microsoft infiltration and stupid politicians who don't see beyond word, x and Facebook.

[i47i@hachyderm.io]

@elettrona @matrix

You've identified the critical gap in digital sovereignty discussions.

Microsoft has genuinely led accessibility development for decades, and this deserves recognition. Their achievements include Narrator, the built-in Windows screen reader that has improved significantly with each release, industry-leading Office accessibility features including comprehensive alt-text support and keyboard navigation that sets standards for document accessibility, Azure AI vision APIs that have proven revolutionary for blind developers working with computer vision, the Xbox Adaptive Controller which demonstrated hardware accessibility innovation, and Soundscape for 3D audio navigation.

Crucially, NVDA—the free, open-source screen reader that many consider the best Windows screen reader—is developed and maintained by the independent non-profit NV Access, not Microsoft.

However, Microsoft has provided significant financial and technical support to NV Access over the years, and NVDA runs optimally on Windows due to deep integration with Windows accessibility APIs. This represents genuine industry leadership worth acknowledging.

1/5

[i47i@hachyderm.io]

@elettrona @matrix

The Linux ecosystem faces measurable accessibility challenges.

Orca, the primary community-driven screen reader for Linux, encounters documented real-world problems that blind users consistently report.

These include inconsistent performance with complex web applications especially those using dynamic JavaScript frameworks, limited and uneven support across different desktop environments like GNOME versus KDE, steeper learning curves due to less centralized and comprehensive documentation compared to commercial alternatives like JAWS or the well-documented NVDA, and a smaller community of blind users sharing practical tips and workarounds.

Organizations like the American Foundation for the Blind have documented that Linux offers a narrower range of mature, professionally-supported accessibility tools compared to Windows or macOS.

This isn't about theoretical capability—it's about the lived experience of blind users who need reliable, well-documented tools with robust community support. The gap is real and significant.

2/5

[i47i@hachyderm.io]

@elettrona @matrix

3/5

This creates an urgent legal problem for digital sovereignty initiatives. French law through the RGAA (Référentiel Général d'Amélioration de l'Accessibilité) and the EU's European Accessibility Act (EAA) impose strict, enforceable digital accessibility requirements on public sector organizations and key service providers.

These aren't guidelines—they're legal mandates with real enforcement mechanisms and substantial penalties for non-compliance.
France's digital sovereignty migration, including the rollout of platforms like Visio and the broader La Suite numérique to hundreds of thousands of government employees, must meet these accessibility standards from day one.

Any deployment that excludes or marginalizes blind users would violate French and EU law, expose organizations to legal liability, and fundamentally fail the ethical test.

Accessibility cannot be an afterthought or future enhancement—it's a legal requirement that must be built into the foundation of these systems.