Re: gnome-terminal awfully slow

On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 21:10, Hidetoshi Tajima wrote:
> Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 08:09:07PM +0000, Bill Haneman wrote: 
> >   
> > > Is VTE a compile-time option?  If so then I am concerned since we
> > > haven't been able to verify the accessibility of VTE yet (at last check,
> > > it failed to emit necessary events when text content or text caret
> > > changed).
> > > 
> > > Of course it might be working but I think we should be very cautious
> > > about swapping out components at build time (as opposed to
> > > user-selectable runtime options) if we haven't yet verified their
> > > accessibility.
> > >     
> > 
> > Zvt is dead, I'm going to delete all support for it from HEAD.  vte is
> > a compile-time option in 2.2.
> >   
> I'd support Havoc. Zvt development has been completely dead for months
> - no chance to be alive again 
> when vte's development is fearly active. I have a reason to judge
> so:-)

This isn't about performance, it's about accessibility.

The fact that vte was compiled into 2.2 was *not* highlighted in the
runup to 2.2.  I think it's quite possible that our terminal
accessibility has considerably regressed from 2.0, and that's not good.


Such things really, truly need to be explicitly called out if we are to
have any chance of creating a usably accessible desktop.  I realize that
this info is probably buried in d-d-list somewhere but us accessibility
folks warned repeatedly against making vte the default gnome-terminal
widget until verification could take place.  If RT/d-d-l was determined
to make the swap regardless, then we really should have been given an
explicit heads-up at that time.


Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]