On 26/12/08 10:36, Nuno Donato wrote: > What is the advantage of using something so complicated as a graphical > user interface, instead of using a text-only alternative?
I'd suggest the number one advantage, leaving aside any more theoretical differences, is the ability for blind people to use the same software as other users. Most popular programs are GUI programs. The pool of developers happy to work on software for everyone is much larger than the pool of developers interested in developing text-only software or developing software for people who are blind, and it's less effort to add in accessibility information for GUI programs than rebuild every program as text-only. Equally important is the social angle. Using the same programs as friends and colleagues means being able to share knowledge or play together more easily. Being able to use a GUI program can also make the difference between employability and non-employability. If Linux wants to be a genuine business alternative, then it needs a GUI office suite and that suite needs to be accessible. Also, as software services increasingly move online and as the line between content-driven webpages and web applications is ever more blurred, the ability to use a JS-capable, ARIA-supporting browser like Firefox is paramount. There's nothing like this among the various text browsers. > The graphical interface is interesting and can speed the use of the > computer. But in case of blind people I feel it slows down even more as > we have to create a mental image of the interface. I think the distinction can be exaggerated. Plenty of text-only programs have interfaces and rely on visual positioning, colors, and symbols to communicate rather than using simple input and output models. Most browsers and editors fall into that category for instance. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list Ubuntu-accessibility@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
