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

Re: (forw) Switch to graphical installer by default?

Le samedi 07 juillet 2012 à 19:03 -0600, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> [ Gah, crappy subject in reply, resend with good subject.
>   Please Cc:-me on replies. ]
> Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > I was fearing that. So at the end, the question becomes: do we trade
> > on accessibility for the default Debian Installer and therefore need
> > to put some specific note in the Release Notes.
> >
> > Or do we stick to "The Universal System" concept and therefore leave
> > the only accessible installer as default. (which indeed makes the
> > installer not universal either because of several missing languages).
> >
> > I'm really balanced on this as I personnally care about *both* of
> > course.
> It is not clear to me how accessible the initial splash screen --- the
> one with currently contain the choice between default, graphical, and
> advanced installation options --- is.

Actually, this splash isn't accessible. I mean we don't access to it via an assistive technology. However, in the installation manual, Debian describes in details every items and their place on the screen. Thus, the user knows that, to run the installer in an accessible layout, he should press x (I don't remember how many) times the Arrow key, then press Enter. Then, either the installer runs brltty (or the speech synthetiser), or the user needs to press, before doing Enter, Tab key, in order to run brltty with an argument for a serial port connected braille display. That's explained in details in the install manual, so it's accessible I think.

> *If* that screen is accessible, then maybe an option could be having the
> graphical installer by default, but clearly labeling the non-graphical
> installer option with something that explains it is more accessible.

I think too it's the easiest way to do. Because the GUI implies a lot of problems to ship orca: space on CD, compatibility with the interface, etc. Then because my approach of accessibility is "way-oriented": any way is good, but the result must be the same for everybody. Even if the interface isn't the same, the user here has the same capabilities. So he has not exactly the same layout, but it's not so different and he gets the same result, so perfect.

Finally, I am wondering if in the future, we'll not have to accept that universal design is very hard: on GNOME3, it's really not perfect and the problems seem hard to fix. And Debian has GNOME by default. Maybe /e'll have to recommend to blind users another desktop: XFCE, or MATE someday, or whatever. I'm trying finding some solution about this point.

> My (tentative) rationale is that it'd be easier for someone who is in
> need of accessibility to discover the best option for them (thanks to
> the accessibility of the splash screen), than for someone who is in need
> of a non-English language to discover theirs (because the splash screen
> is not translatable, so they're more likely to take the default option
> in English and hope it'll get better afterwards).

Best regards,

> Just my 0.02€,
> Cheers.
> -- 
> Stefano Zacchiroli     zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
> Maître de conférences   ......   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ......   . . o
> Debian Project Leader    .......   @zack on identi.ca   .......    o o o
> « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Jean-Philippe MENGUAL

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: