Jason White, le Mon 22 Feb 2010 16:27:53 +1100, a écrit : > The decision process doesn't have the same top-down control structure > that a proprietary operating system vendor can exercise.
Mmm, Even free software projects do have such top-down control structures. For instance in Debian you're not supposed to leave an architecture apart when you package an application, and critical bugs on them are release-critical and will get your package out if you don't fix them. > Another way of saying this is that the more application developers > have to think about "accessibility" as a discrete, separate phenomenon that > needs to be taken into account, the more accessibility is likely to lose, > despite constant "education" efforts and repair strategies to deal with the > deluge of regressions. I think there are a couple of things that could be done. - in glade, some automatic tests could be done: for instance, if a button doesn't have _any_ text attached to it, glade could warn the developper. - like in the Debian case with architectures, accessibility regressions should be marked as release critical. Yes, only regressions. Debian doesn't require an application to work on all architectures, but it cares about regressions, which means that things only improve, except for new packages. However, if in gnome an application is superseded by another, it should also be release critical that the newer is at least as accessible. In all cases, the http://library.gnome.org/devel/accessibility-devel-guide/nightly/ URL should be reminded. I believe it's a way to get in people mind that it is a "must do", not only a "should do". Samuel _______________________________________________ gnome-accessibility-list mailing list gnome-accessibility-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-list
