The evolution of software is linked to the evolution of hardware. For example, GNOME Shell uses relatively primitive 3D capabilities that have been available from essentially all computing devices made in the last five years . No using such capabilities means not delivering a user experience according to the potential that the machines provide. My machine at work is nearly 7 years old and I have also an atom N270 netbook r unning both Gnome 3 with that in a more than adequate way.
I think that, at least in part, this movement from GNOME and Unity of using these capabilities have helped to improve the support of many graphic card drivers and now it is even possible to have software rendering. Developing two separate code paths for accelerated and non-accelerated graphics is a large increase in development resources. The transition was not easy, but we should appreciate whe have been provided ways to alleviate the transition, with the fallback mode in GNOME and Unity 2D. But both of them are only temporally workarounds, the real solution should be alaways provided in the main path of development. I must confess I wasn't aware of the transitional status of Unity 2D, mainly because it was started from the scratch, but it makes sense that Canonical doesn't have resources for both paths. GNOME Shell is quite accessible right now, and we can only expect getting better, and I'm glad to hear that Luke keeps committed in making Unity accessible and I'm sure he will get it. Cheers, -- Juanjo Marin ----- Mensaje original ----- > De: Mallory van Achterberg <[email protected]> > Para: Luke Yelavich <[email protected]> > CC: Ubuntu Accessibility Mailing List > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Enviado: Jueves 10 de Mayo de 2012 9:18 > Asunto: Re: [orca-list] Ubuntu 12.10 and beyond, Unity 2D will no longer be > maintained. > > I remember being told how all movies some day will be 3D because "it's > what the public wants" yet all I hear around me personally is headaches > and a strong desire to find "2d glasses" (which we now have, yay... > where > I live, movies are usually from America and so have subtitles so reading > them is imperative. You could watch a movie without the 3d glasses but > you can't read the subtitles). > > So I'm going to sit back and wait to see if everyone *really* wants > stuff to swish and fade and slide and whatever as the user interacts > with the GUI. Showing movement or that something is gradual is a known > UI improvement as far as letting users know where things go or where > they came from and reduces disorientation (mostly for new users), and > I understand the lowered CPU use (similar things are happening in > the web world, where CSS3 transitions and animations can use the GPU > whereas Javascript is still relying on CPU... for phones and tablets > this makes a big difference)... > > But sometimes I wonder if this heavy "style" of interaction will truly > last, or if it's like skinny jeans: a juggernaut fad. Perhaps > specifically a fad started by Apple. > > Just a thought. Interfaces with fluff should ideally be as accessible > as any other of course. > -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
