Re: [orca-list] Ubuntu 12.10 and beyond, Unity 2D will no longer be maintained.

[Juanjo Marín <juanjomarin96 yahoo es>]

The evolution of software is linked to the evolution of hardware. 
For example, GNOME Shell uses relatively primitive 3D 
capabilities that have been available from essentially all 
computing devices made in the last five years . No using such 
capabilities means not delivering a user experience according 
to the potential that the machines provide. My machine at work 
is nearly 7 years old and I have also an atom N270 netbook r
unning both Gnome 3 with that in a more than adequate way.

I think that, at least in part, this movement from GNOME and 
Unity of using these capabilities have helped to improve the 
support of many graphic card drivers and now it is  even 
possible to have software rendering. 

Developing two separate code paths for accelerated and 
non-accelerated graphics is a large increase in development 
resources. The transition was not easy, but we should 
appreciate whe have been provided ways to alleviate the 
transition, with the fallback mode in GNOME and Unity 2D. 
But both of them are only temporally workarounds, the real 
solution should be alaways provided in the main path of 
development. I must confess I wasn't aware of the 
transitional status of Unity 2D, mainly because it was started 
from the scratch, but it makes sense that Canonical doesn't 
have resources for both paths.

GNOME Shell is quite accessible right now, and we can only 
expect getting better, and I'm glad to hear that Luke keeps 
committed in making Unity accessible and I'm sure he will 
get it.

Cheers,

    -- Juanjo Marin



----- Mensaje original -----
> De: Mallory van Achterberg <stommepoes stommepoes nl>
> Para: Luke Yelavich <luke yelavich canonical com>
> CC: Ubuntu Accessibility Mailing List <ubuntu-accessibility lists ubuntu com>; Orca-list gnome org
> Enviado: Jueves 10 de Mayo de 2012 9:18
> Asunto: Re: [orca-list] Ubuntu 12.10 and beyond, Unity 2D will no longer be maintained.
>
> I remember being told how all movies some day will be 3D because "it's
> what the public wants" yet all I hear around me personally is headaches
> and a strong desire to find "2d glasses" (which we now have, yay... 
> where
> I live, movies are usually from America and so have subtitles so reading
> them is imperative. You could watch a movie without the 3d glasses but
> you can't read the subtitles).
>
> So I'm going to sit back and wait to see if everyone *really* wants
> stuff to swish and fade and slide and whatever as the user interacts
> with the GUI. Showing movement or that something is gradual is a known
> UI improvement as far as letting users know where things go or where
> they came from and reduces disorientation (mostly for new users), and
> I understand the lowered CPU use (similar things are happening in
> the web world, where CSS3 transitions and animations can use the GPU
> whereas Javascript is still relying on CPU... for phones and tablets
> this makes a big difference)...
>
> But sometimes I wonder if this heavy "style" of interaction will truly
> last, or if it's like skinny jeans: a juggernaut fad. Perhaps
> specifically a fad started by Apple.
>
> Just a thought. Interfaces with fluff should ideally be as accessible
> as any other of course.