Re: [g-a-devel] GNOME Launches Campaign for Accessibility
- From: Christian Hofstader <cdh gnu org>
- To: Bill Cox <waywardgeek gmail com>
- Cc: Brian Cameron <brian cameron oracle com>, "gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org" <gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org>, "gnome-accessibility-list gnome org" <gnome-accessibility-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [g-a-devel] GNOME Launches Campaign for Accessibility
- Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:26:27 -0500
> cox: In my opinion, the separation of responsibilities is the main reason
> for lack of a11y progress in GTK. If any of the wonderful people
> working on a11y that we are both fans of were able to commit patches
> to GTK, the issues would have been resolved years ago.
cdh: Can Brian or someone related to Gnome Foundation explain the process for getting a11y fixes upstream? As Bill says and I agree that a bunch of a11y volunteers would be interested in making changes to GTK+ if they had confidence that their remedies would make it into the main branch.
cdh: Is there a document describing the process for volunteer hackers to ensure that their fixes, once approved, make it upstream?
> cox: Because several e-mails on this topic have attacked my emotional
> response to my patch to pixmap objects being rejected, I want to
> explain my philosophy about GUI objects and a11y. If an object is
> going to be displayed on the screen, I feel extremely strongly that
> the programmer using that object should have the opportunity to attach
> a text description to that object. Not only does pixmap not allow
> this, but GTK uses pixmap objects in all lists, tables, and tree
> displays, which is why no icon in any list, table, or tree in any
> single GTK program says anything other than "icon". Any programmer
> who takes the time to examine how GTK programs are typically written
> can come to any conclusion other than pixmap objects are a fundamental
> core object, used just about everywhere, and that the programmers
> using them are not to blame for not making accessible descriptions.
> GTK doesn't allow it.
cdh: I would take this a step further and say that GTK+ should not just support but require text descriptions for all UI objects. Sure, a programmer can put nonsense in the text description field but, as users get nothing better than nonsense now, any programmers who added any text descriptions whatsoever would be a win.
] [Thread Prev