Re: Are Bounce and Slow keys mutually exclusive ?

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

Jody:

My take on this....

XKB allows SlowKeys and BounceKeys to be set at the same time, some
existing GUIs for XKB features (AccessX) do not.  Earl seems to think
that there is no use case for which both are appropriate.  


The counterexample I can come up with is this: a BounceKeys user wants
to avoid multiple keypresses resulting from tremors.  If the tremors are
severe, SlowKeys could make matters worse since SlowKeys would require
the user to hold a key down for a minimum continuous period before
accepting the key.  However, BounceKeys alone only guards against
multiple keypresses, so if a user has lateral targeting problems as
well, SlowKeys could be the right answer.

For such users, SlowKeys alone (with a relatively short timeout) might
work better than BounceKeys, even when tremors are present.

Earl seems to say that nobody would really benefit from using both at
once, and SlowKeys could be an impairment for BounceKeys users.  I think
AccessX/XKB features can stand in the user's way in general, if the
timing parameters are inappropriate to the user's needs, so it's not
100% obvious to me that this is grounds for making the two mutually
exclusive.  

-Bill 

On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 17:42, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:00:40AM -0700, earl johnson wrote:
> > Having radiobuttons designed so you have to add a third button that 
> > says don't select either one of those other 2 buttons seems bogus to me. 
> 
> The initial design used stock checkboxes but put in place the
> exclusion with to visible rationale for it.  Before talking about UI
> can we please get a normative response on whther they actually are
> mutually exclusive ?  XKB makes them distinct the sun AccessX
> extension makes them conflict.  Which is correct ?