[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Metapackages for accessibility

Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes:

> I wonder whether you might like to give me some input on this (patches
> to the tasks files or even unformatted comments are fine) and whether it
> might make sense to also generate some metapackages which can be used to
> simplify the installation of accessibility software easily on a Debian
> machine.

A few more observations and random thoughts about this (and related)

 * The "apps" tasks is very ambigious and overlaps with packages tags:
   It currently contains edbrowse, which was originally written
   by a blind user, but is not really accessibility-specific, at least
   not if seen from a certain perspective.  The interface of
   edbrowse can be appealing to everyone who likes ed-alike interfaces
   or needs scripting.  The current website of edbrowse
   actually hightlights that fact.

   It feels alot more useful to solve the application categorisation
   problem with package tags, which has also been discussed at several
   occasions in the past.  This actually also fits a lot more
   the problem of accessibility being so vague, whats accessible to one
   type of user might be inaccessible to some others, even if they
   have the same disability (speech vs. braille as an example).

   So what we really want is a nice set of tags which can be used to
   find packages which are accessible in a certain way.  Some are already
   there, like the ones which identify ncurses and command-line
   We should probably add one which can be used to tag packages
   which use an accessible toolkit and have been verified to work (no
   custom inaccessible widgets and so on).
   (The Orca wiki is a good starting point for a list of apps which work
    to a certain degree.)

   I think we should drop the apps task altogether.

 * Toolkit tasks:
   1. Where do we put mono-winforms-a11y?

   2. Should we drop the gnome task since they are already handled via

 * natbraille is wrongly categorized, it should be in braille, not


Reply to: