Re: Text alternatives and GtkPixbuf [Was: GNOME Launches Campaign for Accessibility]

[Bill Cox <waywardgeek gmail com>]

I just read what I wrote, and I sound like an ass hole.  Well,
sometimes I am.  I've read that you are doing a lot of code
enhancements for a11y, and that makes want to be your friend.  I spend
less than 1 percent of my time on how to get GTK objects to talk.
When I say please prove me wrong, what I mean is please get these
things to talk!  I, and several other coders in the community, want to
help, and some of us even have the ability to do so.

Thanks,
Bill

On 1/7/12, Bill Cox <waywardgeek gmail com> wrote:
> If the GtkCellRendererPixBuf class werer allowed to have an accessible
> text description, that would be great.  However, most of the code I've
> looked at builds pixbuf objects and later on the calls to
> GtkCellRendererPixBuf are non-aware of exactly which pixmap is being
> drawn.  If you feel that adding some sort of accessible description to
> GtkCellRendererPixBuf will do the job, please make this enhancement.
> However, to fix all the non-accessible table and tree icons, it will
> be much more work than if the pixmap object were allowed to have an
> accessible description.
>
> I have several examples where I made accessible descriptions of pixmap
> objects talk.  We tested this for months with complete success in the
> Vinux community.  I welcome alternatives, but honestly, as a very
> experienced coder, I have to state that it's all bullshit.  We have
> the right solution, and it's been tested very well.  The strategy
> you're talking about is not going to work out, but please feel free to
> prove me wrong.  Please...
>
> Bill
>
> On 1/7/12, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis googlemail com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek gmail com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> This is why the icons on the Qt version of Unity talk.  They rock.  Is
>>> there any way to get through to the GTK team that displayed objects
>>> need an opportunity for accessible descriptions?
>>
>> The maintainer on the bugs for which you provided patches agreed that
>> GTK should provide that opportunity.
>>
>> But they argued that text alternatives should be stored in the data
>> structures containing GtkPixBuf, not in the GtkPixBuf data structure
>> itself.
>>
>> The equivalent structure in QT appears to be QPixmap, and as far as I
>> can tell this does not contain text alternatives either:
>>
>>    https://developer.qt.nokia.com/doc/qt-4.8/qpixmap.html
>>
>> So I'm sceptical of your analysis of why the Qt icons talk, but maybe
>> you can elaborate on how this works in terms of the QT data structure
>> hierarchy?
>>
>> What would be the problem with adding text alternatives higher in the
>> GTK object hierarchy, for example at the GtkCellRendererPixBuf level?
>>
>>    http://developer.gnome.org/gtk/2.24/GtkCellRendererPixbuf.html
>>
>> --
>> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>>
>