evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Sao Mai Center for the Blind — Blind-Led Assistive-Technology Development in Vietnam

Vietnam · Ho Chi Minh City · See the Vietnam profile · See the Ho Chi Minh City profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 10% 96/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

A Vietnamese NGO where blind and low-vision engineers lead development of free screen-reader-compatible software (Braille transcription, text-to-speech, e-book reading); Zero Project-recognised in 2021.

13,000+
Software downloads (by 2020)
5,500+
People trained directly (by 2020)
600+
Assistive-technology trainers trained (by 2020)
Sao Mai Center for the Blind — Blind-Led Assistive-Technology Development in Vietnam

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Sao Mai Center for the Blind (SMCB)
Period
2001–ongoing
Keywords
assistive technology, disability nonprofit, software

Context

Sao Mai Center for the Blind (SMCB), founded in 2001 in Ho Chi Minh City, builds its own accessible software stack — an e-book reader, a Braille translation tool, Vietnamese and Burmese text-to-speech engines and a music reader for blind musicians — designed to work with screen readers such as JAWS and NVDA.

Results

By 2020, SMCB's three flagship products had logged more than 13,000 downloads, and the Center had trained over 600 assistive-technology resource technicians and more than 5,500 blind or low-vision people directly; the Zero Project recognised the work in 2021.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
blind and low-vision software engineers leading development, trainers for assistive-technology resource technicians

Conditions for success

  • hiring blind engineers to lead development so accessibility is tested from lived experience rather than audited after the fact
  • paying staff under the same salary and benefits scheme regardless of disability status

Commonly funded by

Philanthropic / foundation funding

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful