On 7/21/2012 1:22 PM, Richard wrote:
I do not think it would be possible to take just the GUI of either of those and add it to mutt. My ideal xmutt would be much lighter, my feature list is as * mouse * font support, text drawing directly in X or pango might be much simpler than UTF over curses in xterm * some goodies like sidebars which are too hairy to do with curses
if you're interested in experimenting with an idea I proposed for accessibility, we can talk about my ideas called "no UI" as a possible solution. yes, it's a deliberate riff on no SQL. The idea is that applications are servers in the user interface is separate from the application. Why? Because a GUI interface is different from a speech user interface which is different from a hybrid speech user interface (speech and GUI) which is different from a text-to-speech interface.
In the accessibility world, I operate on the principle that accessibility is defined by what the user needs, not what the developer gives. This means that it must be possible to customize the user interface to the point of completely rewriting it if that's what the user needs. I'm not saying it should be easy, just it should be possible. The natural way to do that is to provide an API to the application and isolate the user interface elements in separate processes/modules/whatever.
This idea is still in the knockabout/beat it up and refinement stage and since I am disabled speech recognition user and barred from many applications because of my disability and the lack of accessibility, I have a vested interest in seeing a solution. honestly, I'm not very hopeful I'll get anywhere with this because even the simple idea I have (total words) for making it possible to write code using speech recognition can't get any support from people with hands. It's not complicated either. That's the sad thing.
