Re: [g-a-devel] AccessibleTerminal Interface ?

[Samuel Thibault <samuel thibault ens-lyon org>]

Hi,

Peter Korn, le Sun 05 Jun 2005 19:59:01 -0700, a dit :
>  1. Unlike things like hypertext/HTML, the terminal is not something you 
>  tend
>     to see embedded in other things and used throughout the desktop.  It is,
>     of course, a critical application that must be accessible,

Yes it is a critical application :) People are are used to work with the
text console. They would be disappointed if there was no efficient
terminal reviewing in X and have to go back & forth with the text
console.

> and so there may be enough of an arguement to have a specialized
> interface for it.

I think so :)

>  2. Without a *lot* of work, a GUI/API-based screen reader like Gnopernicus
>     will never be as powerful for the console/terminal as something like
>     BrlTTY.  We've seen this in the Windows world, where JAWS for Windows
>     (for example) isn't as powerful as JAWS for DOS when interacting with
>     DOS apps.

I'm not asking gnopernicus to be as powerful as BrlTTY, on the contrary
:)

I'm here asking for an AccessibleTerminal interface for *BrlTTY* to
efficiently read atspi terminals (it can already as of latest svn
version, but the code is tricky just because of the interface).

>  3. At least today, we don't have significant issues/challenges with GOK
>     or any other (read "none") AT using the terminal - only Gnopernicus, 
>     where we have a very powerful alternative in, among others,
>     BrlTTY.

Yes, but it'd be useful for BrlTTY to have efficient access to
terminals. The current implementation is quite slow (and buggy, see
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166637 )

> So given these points, my initial inclination would be to focus energies on 
> other fires rather than AccessibleTerminal.

Well, I don't think it would need much energy. There are issues indeed,
but I think they can be coped with.

Regards,
Samuel