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

Re: Bug#649503: Please package last version and upload it to unstable



hi.  Unfortunately, we won't know for sure until Debian switches.
Based on what I've read, gnome 3 will be aweful, but maybe not.
My current gnome in Debian has already lost it's desktop and action menu.  I don't know if this is on purpose or a bug.
I've decided to wait to file bugs until the transition completes.

Even though I'm not confident, I agree with Jason that it's time to switch and file bugs.
Switching Sid to the latest at-spi2 and gnome-orca now will allow for enough time to figure out work arounds for bugs
that can't be fixed.
My only concern is I've come to depend on iceweasel to manage my banking.  If my access to iceweasel breaks, I'm going to
be in trouble.

          Kenny

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:41:32AM +0100, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote:
> Why not. But do we know if gnome3 is really accessible, beyond atspi's
> bugs? I met gnome's dev this week-end and I've to say I'm worry. I was
> told about some new way to access to the applications with a field to
> write the application name (so it'd be harder for a basic user, a bit as
> console with problems of graphic interfaces), alt-tab has a slightly
> different behavior, the access to the categories via keyboard isn't
> warrantied. Can we trust in gnome3?
> 
> Thanks for your ans9er. I'm worry I have to say.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
> 
> 
> Le mercredi 23 novembre 2011 à 10:21 +1100, Jason White a écrit :
> > Kenny Hitt <hittsjunk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Eventually, python-pyatspi2 and at-spi2 will become the default, but at-spi2 still has bugs not found
> > > in at-spi.
> > 
> > "Eventually" may have to be very soon indeed. The point being made is that
> > Debian Sid is moving to Gnome 3.2, and the only way to do this, as far as I
> > know, is to complete the transition to AT-SPI 2.
> > 
> > I'm personally in favour: let's go there and then have the remaining bugs
> > fixed.
> > 
> > 



Reply to: