Re: Are Bounce and Slow keys mutually exclusive ?

[Earl Johnson <Earl Johnson sun com>]

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 ?