Jason White wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:22:35PM -0400, Willie Walker wrote: > > >> Note that I'm not necessarily encouraging or supporting the current >> you-get-it-or-you-don't behavior of GNOME. I'd much prefer NOT to have >> a gconf setting to enable accessibility, and I would prefer it to be a >> bit more dynamic. With the current architecture, I think we can get >> *close* to this with some extra work. >> > > To be clear, what I'm supporting is the proposal not to require a gconf > setting to enable accessibility, without this resulting in > performance-degrading events occurring when no assistive technology is active. > > Hi.
I'm interpreting "gconf setting" as "user preference" here, but let's keep in mind that we can set a gconf flag automatically (for example from code in atspi, atk, or some bridge) based on platform events. e.g. "gail_is_live, 1", or "accessibility_is_live, 1". Is that an abuse of gconf? cheers, David _______________________________________________ gnome-accessibility-list mailing list gnome-accessibility-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-list
