On 24/07/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My concern here is for GOK users who, without GOK, are unable to use the > system at all. In that respect, for this class of GOK user GOK is > indeed arguably the most important thing running on that machine.
I agree that SOK does not currently cater for that class of user and that GOK is very important in that respect. GOK obviously targets this class of user and it is good that there is a program that does. Users which do not require the scanning support however do not need almost all of GOK's features and as a result find GOK very cumbersome to use. I don't think that having two applications targetted at two different classes of user is unreasonable. The flexible layout that SOK is capable of would hinder scanning support but helps create layouts more suitable for certain users needs. I'm sure there are other examples of this kind of conflict. > On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 16:38, Chris Jones wrote: > > > > > It's very easy for an application developer to think that his or her > > application is the most important thing running on a users machine, > > though it is not a fair assumption to make. > > > Of course it doesn't have to be called "GOK"; my point is that I am > concerned with the ability of severely disabled users to access the > computer effectively. For such users, though their numbers may be > small, the computer is more than just a tool, it's a lifeline. For some > users it can be nearly their only means of interacting with the world. > For such users, an untrapped pointer grab, for instance, would be a > complete disaster. Similarly, GOK's ability to present menu choices > and UI controls for direct interaction, as opposed to just a replacement > keyboard, can mean an order of magnitude reduction in necessary > "keystrokes". For a scanning/switch user, that can mean the difference > between minutes and seconds in navigating a menu. > > Configuration problems are a real concern, but if I have to choose > between functionality for severely disabled users and headaches for > installers, I choose the latter. Preferably we will fix the latter as > well, but not at the expense of the disabled user's experience once the > configuration is successfully completed. I've already said that we not > only want to fix this, but I have proposed a way forward. > > If the Ubuntu/SOK teams want to improve the lives of those GOK users > as well as the user classes (who are they?) that SOK originally targeted, > then I will repeat what I said before, I would be glad to help both > indirectly and directly, and would support replacing GOK with SOK in > Gnome once SOK met the important feature gaps (and I expect that > I speak for the rest of the GOK team as well). This requires a > cooperative attitude and a respect for not only the problem reports from > the SOK team, but also for the user capabilities and requirements which > GOK is targeting. The University of Toronto Adaptive Technology Center > is one of the world leaders (if not *the* world leader) in adaptive > technologies for mobility impaired persons, so we are fortunate to have > the benefit of their extensive user testing and clinical experience in > understanding the problems to be solved. > > Bill > > -- > > Chris Jones > > > > jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > msn - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ > > gnome-accessibility-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-list > > -- Chris Jones jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn - [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ gnome-accessibility-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-list
