Hi, Peter Korn, le Sun 05 Jun 2005 19:59:01 -0700, a dit : > 1. Unlike things like hypertext/HTML, the terminal is not something you > tend > to see embedded in other things and used throughout the desktop. It is, > of course, a critical application that must be accessible,
Yes it is a critical application :) People are are used to work with the text console. They would be disappointed if there was no efficient terminal reviewing in X and have to go back & forth with the text console. > and so there may be enough of an arguement to have a specialized > interface for it. I think so :) > 2. Without a *lot* of work, a GUI/API-based screen reader like Gnopernicus > will never be as powerful for the console/terminal as something like > BrlTTY. We've seen this in the Windows world, where JAWS for Windows > (for example) isn't as powerful as JAWS for DOS when interacting with > DOS apps. I'm not asking gnopernicus to be as powerful as BrlTTY, on the contrary :) I'm here asking for an AccessibleTerminal interface for *BrlTTY* to efficiently read atspi terminals (it can already as of latest svn version, but the code is tricky just because of the interface). > 3. At least today, we don't have significant issues/challenges with GOK > or any other (read "none") AT using the terminal - only Gnopernicus, > where we have a very powerful alternative in, among others, > BrlTTY. Yes, but it'd be useful for BrlTTY to have efficient access to terminals. The current implementation is quite slow (and buggy, see http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166637 ) > So given these points, my initial inclination would be to focus energies on > other fires rather than AccessibleTerminal. Well, I don't think it would need much energy. There are issues indeed, but I think they can be coped with. Regards, Samuel _______________________________________________ Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
