GNOME.org
 

Re: that darned accessibility capplet

Hi Calum,

I like your proposed change. If you've been following the discussions
on BugId 4743379, CDE's behaviour says Bounce and SlowKeys can't be on
at the same time (reasoning in attached email). Assuming there's
agreement this is a bug, the two should be a radiobutton group instead
of individual checkboxes.

ej

BugId 4743379: Synopsis: keyboard a11y capplet allows both BounceKeys &
SlowKeys to be on at once

> Subject: Re: that darned accessibility capplet
> From: Calum Benson <calum benson sun com>
> To: earl johnson <Earl Johnson sun com>
> Cc: Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>, desktop-devel-list gnome org
> Date: 30 Sep 2002 15:27:10 +0100
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> 
> On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 23:10, earl johnson wrote:
> 
> > > > This is re-run feedback from me but I think the capplet should be a
> > > > tabbed pane with 2 tabs - one tab for StickyKeys, MouseKeys, and
> > > > ToggleKeys; the other a keyboard response tab containing RepeatKeys,
> > > > BounceKeys, and SlowKeys. This sure would go a long way in reducing the
> > > > capplet's current clutter and make the interface easier to use (e.g.
> > > > the individual range setting controls wouldn't have to be so small).
> 
> Attached is a quick'n'dirty patch for
> gnome-accessibility-keyboard-properties.glade to switch it to a two-tab
> model.  It would obviously need a little more work than this, but it'll
> give you an idea of how [un]cluttered the result would be.
> 
> Screenshots at http://www.gnome.org/~calum/accessx for those of you who
> don't want to bother building it :)
> 
> Cheeri,
> Calum.
> 
> -- 
> CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer       Sun Microsystems Ireland
> mailto:calum benson sun com            GNOME Desktop Group
> http://ie.sun.com                      +353 1 819 9771
> 
> Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi Bill,

I checked other art and also found no mention of exclusivity (which CDE
implements). Having said this, the reason CDE implements exclusivity is
because Mark Novak, the designer from Trace Research who first
implemented AccessPak (DOS version of AccessX) and was directly
involved in AccessX's design, said exclusivity was required. Compaq's
version of AccessX also implemented the exclusivity. The following
hilites why: SlowKeys requires a key to be held down for a specific
length of time before the system accepts the key press.  BounceKeys on
the other hand only accepts the first keypress of the user and requires
time off the key before it will accept a press on the same key again.
What combining these 2 functions together means for a user who needs
BounceKeys (i.e. the user has tremors) is that they will never be able
to get the system to accept a keypress from them because they are
physically unable to fulfill what SlowKeys requires of them.  Luckily,
I don't believe the SlowKeys user will be effected if BounceKeys is
also on.

This is why I believe the bug is appropriate. There is a workaround in
case this bug can't be fixed in the first release of GNOME 2 - the
BounceKeys user can set the acceptance delay of SlowKeys to 0 seconds

See the following for more discussion on BounceKeys and SlowKeys:
	http://docs.sun.com/?p=/doc/806-2901/6jc3a4m21&a=view#accessxapp-14258

ej
 
> 
> Alan/all:
> 
> The XKB standard appears to allow both of these features to be on at
> once.  The CDE GUI did not allow it but it does appear to be valid and
> useful, since key debounce and key delay are separate operations:
> 
> BounceKeys suppresses multiple key presses within a time duration (i.e.
> after an initial key press)
> 
> SlowKeys suppresses key 'contact' events of short duration.
> 
> In most cases it is true that SlowKeys would mask the effect of
> BounceKeys (since both are timer-based), but some users may wish to
> affect a longer delay for BounceKeys than SlowKeys, in which case both
> controls would be needed.
> 
> Note that other 'prior art' in the area of GUIs for AccessX  (other than
> the CDE version) as developed by Dan Linder and distributed for some
> time by the UIUC Rehab Department includes both BounceKeys and SlowKeys
> controls in the same GUI, without exclusivity.
> 
> So I do not believe that this is a regression in any meaningful sense of
> the word.  Changing the GNOME AccessX GUI to make Bounce and Slow keys
> mutually exclusive would result in a limitation for a (presumably small)
> subset of users.
> 
> regards,
> 
> -Bill
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2002-09-07 at 00:45, alan coopersmith sun com wrote:
> >  Bug Id: 4743379
> >  Product: gnome
> >  Category: gnome
> >  Subcategory: accessibility
> >  Release summary: gnome2.0_beta2
> >  Bug/Rfe/EOU: bug
> >  State: dispatched
> >  Development Status: 
> >  Synopsis: keyboard a11y capplet allows both BounceKeys & SlowKeys to be on 
at once
> >  Keywords: 
> >  Severity: 3
> >  Severity Impact: Significant
> >  Severity Functionality: Secondary
> >  Priority: 3
> >  Responsible Manager: leob ireland
> >  Responsible Engineer: 
> >  Description:
> > The GNOME keyboard accessibility control panel allows turning on both the
> > BounceKeys & SlowKeys features at the same time.  These features should 
instead
> > be grouped together and be mutually exclusive - the only valid states should 
be:
> > 	- both off
> > 	- BounceKeys on, SlowKeys off
> > 	- SlowKeys on, BounceKeys off
> > 
> > Having both on at the same time should not be a valid state.
> >  Justification:
> > Regression from CDE AccessX GUI 
> >  Work around:
> > Run the old motif AccessX GUI under GNOME to get the correct behaviour.
> >  Suggested fix:
> > 
> >  State triggers:
> > 	Accepted: no
> > 	Evaluation complete: no
> > 	Evaluation: 
> > 
> > 	Commit to fix in releases: 
> > 	Fixed in releases: 
> > 	Integrated in releases: 
> > 	Verified in releases: 
> > 	Closed because: 
> > 	Incomplete because: 
> >  Duplicate of: 
> >  Introduced in Release: 
> >  Root cause: 
> >  Program management: 
> >  Fix affects documentation: no
> >  Exempt from dev rel: no
> >  Fix affects L10N: 
> >  Interest list: X-GNOME-Access sun com
> >  Patch id: 
> >  Comments:
> > 
> >  See also: 
> >  Hooks:
> > 	Hook 1(hook1): 
> > 	Hook 2(hook2): 
> > 	Hook 3(hook3): 
> > 	Hook 4(hook4): 
> > 	Hook 5(hook5): 
> > 	Hook 6(hook6): 
> >  History:
> > 	Submitter:            alanc	Date: Sep  6 2002  5:45PM
> > 	Dispatch Operator:    bugtraq	Date: Sep  6 2002  5:45PM
> > 	Acceptor:             	Date: 
> > 	Evaluator:            	Date: 
> > 	Commit operator:      	Date: 
> > 	Fix operator:         	Date: 
> > 	Integrating operator: 	Date: 
> > 	Verify operator:      	Date: 
> > 	Closeout operator:    	Date: 
> >  Called in by:
> >     Customer:
> > 	Company: Sun Microsystems
> > 	Employee: Earl Johnson
> > 	User Role: A
> > 	User Type: I
> > 	Release: gnome2.0_beta2
> > 	Hardware version: generic
> > 	O/S version (unbundled products): 5.9
> > 	SO Number: 
> > 	Sun Contact: earlj
> > 	Contact Name: William Johnson
> > 	Contact Mailaddr: earl johnson sun com
> >  Escalation(s):
> >  Public Summary:
> > 
> >  Old Name: 
> >  Bug End:
> > 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> 
> 



------------- End Forwarded Message -------------

--- End Message ---
[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]