Re: [orca-list] Trying Quantal Quetsal Alpha 3

[Jason White <jason jasonjgw net>]

Thomas Ward <thomasward1978 gmail com> wrote:
 
> Yes, I know. However, I was merely pointing out that the apps menu is
> still there in Gnome-shell its just not as easy to get to as it was in
> earlier versions of Gnome. Although, I agree with you its often easier
> just to type the name of an application into the Dash and have it
> locate the launcher in question. This seems to be a fairly common
> design feature of modern graphical user interfaces as typing the name
> of an app in the start screen on Windows 8 will do the same thing.

Based on what I have read, the influences on Gnome 3 come from a review of the
user interface literature and from developments in mobile devices, especially
touch-screen interfaces. The same influences appear to be shaping the design
of other desktop environments and operating systems, but by no means all of
them.
> Its definitely not unusual at all. However, there lies the true power
> of open source software. With Linux a person can technically pick the
> user interface he or she likes, use the applications they like, and
> can have absolute control over the OS where with Mac OS and Windows
> what you see is what you get.

Yes, exactly. Also, each of those alternatives will survive and thrive for as
long as there are people with sufficient interest and resources to maintain
and improve the software.

This is very different from a situation in which a single vendor's business
and technical decisions determine what is and is not available in future
releases.

I think diversity of interfaces is desirable and inevitable in the free and
open-source software world. I would argue that one can't have freedom without
creating the conditions for diversity to arise, given inevitable divergences
of needs and preferences, and human creativity. The idea that there will ever
be only one user interface, desktop environment, etc., is as unrealistic as it
is unwelcome.

Accessibility needs to be designed to work well amid this diversity. I think
the widespread acceptance of AT-SPI 2 and its D-Bus APIs (Gnome, KDE, XFCE,
Unity etc.) helps in that process. This really is unprecedented. Meanwhile,
the underlying textual environment inherited from the UNIX tradition continues
to develop, and there are good access tools for working with it. Then there
are environments such as Emacs and Chromium that have their own access tools
(e.g., Emacspeak and Chromevox, respectively). With these tools it's possible
to provide interfaces that would be much harder to achieve with a screen
reader, because you have access to the internals of the application and you're
creating a special-purpose tool rather than a generalized assistive
technology.

Thus again there are different solutions on offer and that's ultimately good
as well as inevitable.