Re: Are Bounce and Slow keys mutually exclusive ?

[earl johnson <Earl Johnson sun com>]

John,

Having both on makes the system unusable to the BounceKeys user. The
final solution, whatever it is, must deal with this because it is
unacceptable to allow AccessX to be placed in a state that locks out an
intended user. What do you propose be done to deal with this problem while
still maintaining the flexibility you vote for?

Earl

> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:47:28 -0500 (CDT)
> From: "John J. Boyer" <director chpi org>
> X-X-Sender: director Jumbo
> To: Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>
> cc: Jody Goldberg <jody gnome org>, earl johnson <Earl Johnson sun com>, 
<calum benson sun com>, <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
> Subject: Re: Are Bounce and Slow keys mutually exclusive ?
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> Bill,
> I vote for flexibility, that is for NOT making slow-keys and bounce-keys 
> mutually exclusive. I once worked with someone who could have used both.
> John
> On 
> 3 Oct 2002, Bill Haneman wrote:
> 
> > 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 ?
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > desktop-devel-list gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Computers to Help People, Inc.
> http://www.chpi.org
> 825 East Johnson; Madison, WI 53703
> 
>