Hi,
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Claudio Saavedra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's also this ugly emacs+metacity+a11y lock, that makes my computer
> unusable. I think I hadn't noticed this before because I was using some
> emacs snapshot, but now I switched laptops and haven't got the time
From the Bugsquad mailing list,
an issue about openoffice.org (java-related?) misbehaving when
accessibility is on,
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-bugsquad/2008-February/msg00031.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-bugsquad/2008-September/msg00018.html
Another issue is Eclipse (java) d
ma., 08.09.2008 kl. 21.39 +0300, skrev Claudio Saavedra:
> El mié, 30-07-2008 a las 15:56 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo escribió:
> > On 7/30/08, Bastien Nocera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 12:00 -0400, Willie Walker wrote:
> > > > Hi All:
> > > >
> > > > I recently had
El mié, 30-07-2008 a las 15:56 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo escribió:
> On 7/30/08, Bastien Nocera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 12:00 -0400, Willie Walker wrote:
> > > Hi All:
> > >
> > > I recently had a nice discussion with the release team about the
> > > viability o
Gestures are definitely a very good way to launch the assistive
technologies. The work Jon McCann and company are doing with
gnome-session and gdm should also make the gestures available in a
logged-in session as well.
Thanks!
Will
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 17:29 +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 17:29 +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That sounds nice, but I don't
> > see how just enabling AT-SPI et al accomplishes this.
> >
> > For instance, if a blind user logs in, she'll still have
> > to na
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That sounds nice, but I don't
> see how just enabling AT-SPI et al accomplishes this.
>
> For instance, if a blind user logs in, she'll still have
> to navigate to the accessibility preferences to enable a
> screen reader.
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 12:00 -0400, Willie Walker wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I recently had a nice discussion with the release team about the
> viability of enabling accessibility (i.e., the AT-SPI infrastructure) by
> default for GNOME. As a result of that discussion, I'm approaching the
> broader G
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Simos Xenitellis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Fernando Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Willie Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> PRIMARY ARGUMENTS FOR ENABLING A11Y BY DEFAULT:
>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Fernando Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Willie Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> PRIMARY ARGUMENTS FOR ENABLING A11Y BY DEFAULT:
> [...]
>> 2) The a11y infrastructure can be used for more things than just a11y.
>>
Le lundi 04 août 2008, à 08:43 -0400, Willie Walker a écrit :
> Yowsa! Li jumped on this one *fast* - there's already a fix and a
> release in place. Way to go, Li!
Just want to say that's it's great to see fixes go in so fast :-)
Vincent
--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
Le lundi 04 août 2008 à 08:43 -0400, Willie Walker a écrit :
> Yowsa! Li jumped on this one *fast* - there's already a fix and a
> release in place. Way to go, Li!
>
> This just makes me want to repeat the request to increase the
> communication regarding issues you have regarding the accessib
Yowsa! Li jumped on this one *fast* - there's already a fix and a
release in place. Way to go, Li!
This just makes me want to repeat the request to increase the
communication regarding issues you have regarding the accessibility
infrastructure.
For example, one of the recurring comments is
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 11:33 -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Mark Doffman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe that there is very little detrimental effect for the majority of
> > users to turning accessibility on by default.
>
> I'd love to see hard performance nu
GNOME should be accessible "out of the box", and I'd enjoy being able to
tell people it is... so a big +1 from me.
cheers,
David
Willie Walker wrote:
Hi All:
I recently had a nice discussion with the release team about the
viability of enabling accessibility (i.e., the AT-SPI infrastructure)
PS - Bug/RFE logged here:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=545849.
If there are other specific problems that people know about, I really
encourage them to log bugs. Otherwise, the team will likely not know
about them and they will likely go unfixed. The current AT-SPI
maintainer, Li Y
Hi Brian,
Will HCLPI theme be there too?
-Tim
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 10:36 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Mathias:
>
> > Ok, I agree, that it is ridiculous that currently accessibility has to
> > be activated manually.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > What makes me wonder: Can't we improve our to enable those
Wow - that polling really does bite. :-( Looks like it's been in there
for 6 years!
http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/at-spi/trunk/registryd/deviceeventcontroller.c?revision=326&view=markup
To me, it kind of seems rather inefficient for the prototypical use case
of mouse motion events, which is to
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd love to see hard performance numbers before we reach that
> conclusion. (I really don't care about memory numbers. Geeks look at
> top; my fiancee just sits and taps her fingers waiting for GNOME to
> log in.)
Here is on
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Mark Doffman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Everyone, Luis,
>
> Luis Villa wrote:
>>
>> And login times? Impacted, not impacted? Application performance?
>> (Granted this last one is probably hard to get at, but it still seems
>> important to measure- we are, after
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 17:37 +0100, Mark Doffman wrote:
>
> I believe that there is very little detrimental effect for the majority
> of users to turning accessibility on by default. This is greatly
> outweighed by the benefits to new users who require the accessibility
> support.
How about jus
Hi Everyone, Luis,
Luis Villa wrote:
And login times? Impacted, not impacted? Application performance?
(Granted this last one is probably hard to get at, but it still seems
important to measure- we are, after all, considering something here
that could impact every single application.)
Tangentia
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Willie Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PRIMARY ARGUMENTS FOR ENABLING A11Y BY DEFAULT:
[...]
> 2) The a11y infrastructure can be used for more things than just a11y.
> Consider, for example, an on screen keyboard for devices w/o physical
> keyboards.
I'd
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And login times? Impacted, not impacted? Application performance?
>> (Granted this last one is probably hard to get at, but it still seems
>> important
On jeu, 2008-07-31 at 11:32 -0400, Willie Walker wrote:
> 4) Keep it off by default. Provide some sort of "refresh this session"
> support that keeps the user logged in, but basically kills everything on
> the desktop and restarts gnome-session. With this, users would have the
> similar "you m
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And login times? Impacted, not impacted? Application performance?
> (Granted this last one is probably hard to get at, but it still seems
> important to measure- we are, after all, considering something here
> that could impac
Mathias:
Ok, I agree, that it is ridiculous that currently accessibility has to
be activated manually.
Agreed.
What makes me wonder: Can't we improve our to enable those features on
demand? As far as I understand the accessibility tool chain it consists
of those components:
In GDM 2.20 a
Willie Walker wrote:
Excellent discussion so far. I'm going to write up a summary shortly.
Here's what I'm seeing from this good discussion:
PRIMARY ARGUMENTS AGAINST ENABLING A11Y BY DEFAULT:
---
1) Performance. From recent tests, it does loo
And login times? Impacted, not impacted? Application performance?
(Granted this last one is probably hard to get at, but it still seems
important to measure- we are, after all, considering something here
that could impact every single application.)
Tangentially, I'm disappointed with the 'a user c
Willie Walker wrote:
Thanks for the numbers Mark! Numbers speak a lot louder than blanket
statements, IMO, and you've always been awesome about giving numbers.
:-) I ran some tests on my Ubuntu Intrepid with GNOME 2.23.5 machine
as well.
1) As you mention, the at-spi-registryd will be autom
Thanks for the numbers Mark! Numbers speak a lot louder than blanket
statements, IMO, and you've always been awesome about giving numbers.
:-) I ran some tests on my Ubuntu Intrepid with GNOME 2.23.5 machine as
well.
1) As you mention, the at-spi-registryd will be automatically started by
g
Excellent discussion so far. I'm going to write up a summary shortly.
Just to clarify one thing, though, especially since this has come up
more than once (at least in e-mail to me):
The only downside I found when using GNOME with a11y enabled on my
system was that somehow the mousekeys were e
Thanks for the quick metrics Mark, they are helpful.
Nice to see no extra CPU load... and RAM is cheap and users are
priceless, and we aren't talking about a lot of extra RAM it seems.
cheers,
David
Mark Doffman wrote:
Hi everyone,
Rob Taylor wrote:
Hmm, my take here is that the current AT-S
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 13:47 +0100, Alexander Jones wrote:
> I mean, disabled users don't just "land" at a PC and have to use it
> without any help. And if you operate PC's in which that is the case,
> you should just turn this on by default.
I think the point is that if the installer was accessibl
I don't see why this couldn't just be enabled on a per-user basis by
the distros' installer tools. Assuming that the installer environment
has a11y-enabled, they already ask you for your name and password, so
why not have an option to enable/disable a11y?
I mean, disabled users don't just "land" a
Gerd Kohlberger wrote:
Dylan McCall wrote:
"Mousetweaks requires Assistive Technologies."
I used this as the first example in a little post I made regarding
courteous software.
Let's pretend for a moment I am a disabled person who has trouble with
mouse buttons. I am trying to turn on a critic
Hi everyone,
Rob Taylor wrote:
Hmm, my take here is that the current AT-SPI is possibly a little too
heavy to enable by default. I'd suggest we look at enabling a11y by
default when the new AT-SPI DBus is ready (2.26 at current estimations)
I'll take my best guess about what happens when a11y
On jeu, 2008-07-31 at 13:14 +0800, Tao, Miao wrote:
> I think what we did here is for a better user experiences to
> accessibility users, just like what Will said, it's far easier for
> someone without a disability to turn it off than it is for a person with
> a disability to turn it on.
At instal
Ok, I agree, that it is ridiculous that currently accessibility has to
be activated manually.
Still we have the problem that our current accessibility technology
just sucks too much for being enabled by default. So obviously we need a
plan to fix the situation.
IMHO the suggested plan of just en
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 12:00 -0400, Willie Walker wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I recently had a nice discussion with the release team about the
> viability of enabling accessibility (i.e., the AT-SPI infrastructure) by
> default for GNOME. As a result of that discussion, I'm approaching the
> broader G
Dylan McCall wrote:
"Mousetweaks requires Assistive Technologies."
I used this as the first example in a little post I made regarding
courteous software.
Let's pretend for a moment I am a disabled person who has trouble with
mouse buttons. I am trying to turn on a critical accessibility feature
I think what we did here is for a better user experiences to
accessibility users, just like what Will said, it's far easier for
someone without a disability to turn it off than it is for a person with
a disability to turn it on.
And I also have an idea about this, I saw accessible installation dem
> Hi All:
>
> I recently had a nice discussion with the release team about the
> viability of enabling accessibility (i.e., the AT-SPI infrastructure) by
> default for GNOME. As a result of that discussion, I'm approaching the
> broader GNOME community with a proposal to do this. :-)
>
> Acc
Hmm, my take here is that the current AT-SPI is possibly a little too
heavy to enable by default. I'd suggest we look at enabling a11y by
default when the new AT-SPI DBus is ready (2.26 at current estimations)
I've cc'd Mark Doffman for his imput as he's probably got the most
experience profil
On 7/30/08, Bastien Nocera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 12:00 -0400, Willie Walker wrote:
> > Hi All:
> >
> > I recently had a nice discussion with the release team about the
> > viability of enabling accessibility (i.e., the AT-SPI infrastructure)
> > by
> > default for
The way accessibility support works is that GTK+ loads accessibility
modules (gail and atk-bridge) if it detects that accessibility support
is enabled.
If accessibility support is not enabled when an application starts, I
don't believe there is a way to indicate to a running GTK+ application
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 12:00 -0400, Willie Walker wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I recently had a nice discussion with the release team about the
> viability of enabling accessibility (i.e., the AT-SPI infrastructure)
> by
> default for GNOME. As a result of that discussion, I'm approaching
> the
> broad
Am Mittwoch, den 30.07.2008, 13:11 -0400 schrieb Willie Walker:
> Alexander Jones wrote:
> > Isn't this a distro decision?
>
> Ultimately, I guess the value for any gconf setting in
> schemas/desktop_gnome_interface.schemas can be whatever a distro wants
> it to be. What I'm proposing, however
Alexander Jones wrote:
> Isn't this a distro decision?
Ultimately, I guess the value for any gconf setting in
schemas/desktop_gnome_interface.schemas can be whatever a distro wants
it to be. What I'm proposing, however, is that the default value that
we choose for GNOME is that accessibility
Isn't this a distro decision?
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Hi All:
I recently had a nice discussion with the release team about the
viability of enabling accessibility (i.e., the AT-SPI infrastructure) by
default for GNOME. As a result of that discussion, I'm approaching the
broader GNOME community with a proposal to do this. :-)
Accessibility has
51 matches
Mail list logo
