Re: Are Bounce and Slow keys mutually exclusive ?

["John J. Boyer" <director chpi org>]

Earl,
Your proposal of setting the sliders to 0 on startup sounds good to me. 
Sometimes we have to go through an exercise before we will know how it 
turns out.
John
On 
Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Earl Johnson wrote:

> So now we're almost back to where things were before I squaked. John's
> observation and my "lock no one out" reply reminded me I've frequently
> pointed out disability types cover a spectrum of possibilities versus a
> discrete number of n types (i.e. you can always find a n+1 case within
> a given category such as "physical disability"). My worry of locking
> out the BounceKeys user is still there tho. If flexibility is the route
> the capplet stays on, the default settings shipped with the AccessX
> capplet for BounceKeys and SlowKeys should be such that if a BounceKeys
> user accidently activates SlowKeys they will still be able to use the
> system. Setting the "Only accept keys held for" slider for SlowKeys and
> "Ignore duplicate keypresses within" slider for BounceKeys at 0 seconds
> when AccessX first starts up and the user has saved no different
> settings should address this concern and allow checkboxes to still be
> used. Is this an acceptable solution?
> 
> This was a valid exercise but sorry for its length and for subjecting
> so many of you to it.
> 
> Earl
> 
> > Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:13:47 -0400
> > To: earl johnson <Earl Johnson sun com>
> > Cc: director chpi org, calum benson sun com, desktop-devel-list gnome org, 
> bill haneman sun com
> > Subject: Re: Are Bounce and Slow keys mutually exclusive ?
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> > User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
> > From: Jody Goldberg <jody gnome org>
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:51:49PM -0700, earl johnson wrote:
> > > Sorry for the soapbox everyone. 
> > > 
> > > What I really meant John was I'm all for enabling the selection of both
> > > simultaneously because it broadens AccessX's user support. Your vote
> > > says flexibility, mine says exclusivity. Maybe we can do bothivity with
> > > the UI. I think it will work if a fourth radiobutton was added. They
> > > could be Bounce only, Slow only, Both, None. Would that work
> > > aesthetically and conceptually on the UI?
> > 
> > I fail to see how this is materially different from the current
> > scheme with 2 checkboxes ?
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Computers to Help People, Inc.
http://www.chpi.org
825 East Johnson; Madison, WI 53703