Re: Metapackages for accessibility
Andreas Tille <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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