Le 31/03/12 12:19, julien2412 a écrit :
> What about putting these bugs to "RESOLVED/NOTOURBUG" ? :-p > More seriously, I really wonder if it's due to LO bug(s) or Accessibility > bug(s) (mix of both/depend on the LO bug reported ?) > At a wild guess, incompatibilites in the new APIs used by Apple as it marches on with the evolution of its OS and LO's archaic use of the old AT API interface methods... The problem with your suggestion ;-) of setting to NOTOURBUG is that the problems will get worse. As it is, people with a disability requiring the use of the AT APIs can not use LO on Lion, or apparently Leopard, without it crashing on them willy-nilly and in extremely random situations. This means that if nothing is done, i.e. if we can't find a Mac programmer who knows the AT APIs and can convert our crappy Carbon/Cocoa kludge (which has served us well so far, but is really out of date) to deal with those issues, then we will ultimately cut ourselves off from anyone with a disability. As it is, LO suffers, due to its OOo heritage, from accessibility issues independently of the OS, simply because it wasn't designed in advance with accessibility in mind, and that got thrown in as an afterthought by Sun/IBM at some stage during OOo development. If we now continue to alienate even more those with a disability, then there is no way that LO will gain significant market penetration with any form of administration that requires accessibility issues to be taken seriously. The biggest case in point I can remember is the Massachussetts state deciding not to migrate to OOo because of its failure to adequately deal with accessibility issues, whereas at the time MSO had no such problems (at least not that would make the situation any worse than it was). Alex _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
