Joey Hess, le Wed 29 Mar 2006 19:03:58 -0500, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault wrote: > > I'm not blind so my voice might be suspicious, but I find it a lot > > easier to use the newt frontend than the text frontend: choosing an > > option in a long newt list is just a matter of pressing arrows, while > > browsing through the text list is quite tedious. > > Could be fixed by displaying one choice per line.
This is already done so, and really, compared to this, newt is more usable with a braille device. > > Are there many people that use the text frontend? The fact that it is > > currently only included on access floppies, ia64/hppa cdroms and netboot > > images makes me doubt on that. > > It's used by enough things (encluding being the only frontend for s390) > that it will be kept maintained. Ok, fine! (for speakup) > > Really, do you have anything _against_ the "brltty peeks bterm's output" > > solution? > > Yes, it: > > - Makes it harder for d-i to move away from using bterm in the future. It shouldn't be hard to patch any replacement for bterm. > - Excludes anyone using a machine without a frambuffer supported by d-i > (including some laptops, and many non-i386 archirectures). No, that's the converse: brltty _does_ already work fine in such case. This thread is about _not_ having to disable the framebuffer just for accessibility stuff. > - Doesn't solve any issues relating to using brltty on the console of > the installed system, which will definitly *not* be running bterm. This issue is _already_ resolved. > - Has failure modes releated to the video hardware in the system, which > are impossible for a blind user to diagnose. Mmm, so what? He doesn't care about video anyway... Or else he cares because someone non-blind is following the installation too, and that one can hence diagnose. Regards, Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
