Re: that darned accessibility capplet

On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 04:40, Bill Haneman wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 19:29, Seth Nickell wrote:
> > > The change was not uncontroversial.  I think that if we do rearrange the
> > > accessibility capplet, we should be willing to re-think that issue as
> > > well.  To be honest, the existing "Keyboard" capplet is a little weird,
> > > since it includes cursor blink rate, and sounds.  (Does no-one else find
> > > that weird?)
> > 
> > Yes. The existing keyboard capplet contains a lot of esoteric settings
> > like that. Many of them, like keyboard sounds, I would vote for removing
> > altogether.
> I think they are useful, but question whether "Keyboard" is the right
> place for them.  For instance, "Keyboard sounds" seem more closely
> related to system sounds.

Almost every setting is "useful". Its just they're varying degrees of
useful. Is this really something that more than 5-10% of users will
change? Is it really important that it be changeable by more than 1% of
users? If the answer to those is "no" (I think it is), IMO its a crack
preference, and we should just pick a good default and run with it.

> Likewise cursor-blink rate seems like something that belongs in "theme".

?!? WTF. Why don't we just have themes changing every single setting on
the system? This is lunacy.

> So then the only things we really want to change that are "keyboard"
> settings are the XKB/AccessX settings!
> The only issue I can see with refactoring this is that moving key-repeat
> to the accessibility->keyboard capplet would probably make it harder to
> find for most users.   So far I can't see a way of improving such a move
> that would not have some negative impact on accessibility users (for
> instance, calling the Accessibility->Keyboard capplet just "Keyboard",
> and reordering it to have "Accessibility", "MouseKeys", "General" tabs,
> or something like that.
> -Bill
> > -Seth
> > 

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]