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 demo on last CSUN meeting, can we add an option while accessible installation to let user choose enabling or disabling the accessibility support in his/her session by default? This option can be set to "Enable Accessibility Support by default", for a person with disability, he/she would much like to keep that, for a person without disability, he/she could choose keep it there or disable it after installation. -Tim On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 15:54 -0400, Willie Walker wrote: > 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 > to go ahead and load the accessibility modules retroactively. As such, > one needs to quit running applications and restart them in order for > changes to the accessibility setting to take effect. > > The current user experience is very bad and kind of a Catch 22 > situation: in order to enable accessibility, they often need to use > assisitve technologies. In order to use assisitve technologies, they > often need accessibility enabled. So, what we do now is tell users to > find some way to enable accessibility for their session, then log out > and log back in. It's really embarrassing as far as I'm concerned. > > I'll see if we can dig up some metrics on the costs of enabling a11y. > If anyone has good suggestions for how to do this and how to get numbers > that people will trust, I'd like to hear them. :-) Even if the numbers > are not favorable, however, I think I'd still argue to turn a11y on by > default: 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. > > Will > > Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > > 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, is that the default value that > >> we choose for GNOME is that accessibility will be enabled by default. > >> If distros want to revert this back to disabling accessibility, I guess > >> it would be their choice. > > > > What is the motivation for enabling accessibility by default? > > > > For the regular user (not handicapped, not a testing engineer) the > > accessibility bridge just consumes resources without providing any > > benefit - AFAIKS. > > > > Why can't accessibility be activated on demand? With D-Bus activation > > we have the platform for enabling such features on demand. > > > > Ciao, > > Mathias > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > desktop-devel-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
