Re: [g-a-devel] No module anymore & perfect zoom feature

2018-03-06 Thread Alex ARNAUD
Le 01/03/2018 à 21:27, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : Thanks. I was not claiming that the Shell’s zoom is perfect; I’m saying that the Shell is where things need to be fixed, as it’s where things are implemented already. The shell does not currently ask the toolkit to render an area at a

Re: [g-a-devel] No module anymore & perfect zoom feature

2018-03-06 Thread Alejandro
On 05/03/18 15:32, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Bastien Nocera, on lun. 05 mars 2018 15:21:47 +0100, wrote: >> Perhaps, but you'd be doing a disservice to your users trying to >> implement this as a "can run anywhere" solution. I don't think there's >> any way you can implement this generically so

Re: [g-a-devel] No module anymore & perfect zoom feature

2018-03-06 Thread Alex ARNAUD
Le 01/03/2018 à 16:32, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : that the current GNOME Shell already has logic for zoom, color inversion, and other effects, it’s perfectly capable of dealing with these requirements. You can enable the GNOME Shell zoom feature, zoom to the factor 10 and tell me if it works

Re: [g-a-devel] No module anymore & perfect zoom feature

2018-03-06 Thread Alejandro
Not too much time to get involved on this, but I will at least make the obvious question: On 26/02/18 11:49, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Hello, > > So, I also saw the removal of generic modules. > > Unfortunately we currently need it for implementing perfect zoom feature > :) > > The context is

Re: [g-a-devel] No module anymore & perfect zoom feature

2018-03-06 Thread Samuel Thibault
Alejandro, on mar. 06 mars 2018 09:35:01 +0100, wrote: > On 05/03/18 15:32, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Bastien Nocera, on lun. 05 mars 2018 15:21:47 +0100, wrote: > >> Perhaps, but you'd be doing a disservice to your users trying to > >> implement this as a "can run anywhere" solution. I don't

Re: [g-a-devel] No module anymore & perfect zoom feature

2018-03-05 Thread Samuel Thibault
Bastien Nocera, on lun. 05 mars 2018 15:21:47 +0100, wrote: > Perhaps, but you'd be doing a disservice to your users trying to > implement this as a "can run anywhere" solution. I don't think there's > any way you can implement this generically so that there's no work > needed on other desktops. >

Re: [g-a-devel] No module anymore & perfect zoom feature

2018-03-05 Thread Bastien Nocera
On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:05 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Hello, > > Emmanuele Bassi, on jeu. 01 mars 2018 20:27:04 +, wrote: > > I was not claiming that the Shell’s zoom is perfect; I’m saying > > that the Shell > > is where things need to be fixed, as it’s where things are > > implemented

Re: [g-a-devel] No module anymore & perfect zoom feature

2018-03-05 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, Emmanuele Bassi, on jeu. 01 mars 2018 20:27:04 +, wrote: > I was not claiming that the Shell’s zoom is perfect; I’m saying that the Shell > is where things need to be fixed, as it’s where things are implemented > already. Well, that is for gnome. Users shouldn't be tied with gnome

Re: [g-a-devel] No module anymore & perfect zoom feature

2018-03-01 Thread Emmanuele Bassi
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 at 00:03, Alex ARNAUD wrote: > Le 01/03/2018 à 16:32, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : > > that the current GNOME Shell already has logic for zoom, color > > inversion, and other effects, it’s perfectly capable of dealing with > > these requirements. > > You can

Re: [g-a-devel] No module anymore & perfect zoom feature

2018-03-01 Thread Samuel Thibault
Emmanuele Bassi, on jeu. 01 mars 2018 15:32:37 +, wrote: > The display server can not invent information, at best it could > achieve the zoom-gimp.png result, which is really not enough for > visually-impaired people. Here I have only magnified a couple of times, > people quite

Re: [g-a-devel] No module anymore & perfect zoom feature

2018-02-27 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, Alejandro, on mar. 27 févr. 2018 08:11:26 +0100, wrote: > On 26/02/18 11:49, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Without module loading, I don't know how to implement it :) Or perhaps > > this could be added as an AT-SPI interface? > > Being added as an AT-SPI interface would depend on what API do