On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 14:49 -0600, Kenny Hitt wrote: > Hi. > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:53:24AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > 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 However, if in gnome an application is superseded 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 > > Thank you. You did a much better job than me at explaining the issue I have > with Gnome accessibility. If the Gnome board would only make a small > policy change, accessibility would stop going backwards. >
Accessibility is definitely seen as a priority by GNOME leadership. I agree with you that there needs to be more stringent rules for GNOME applications. I believe the folks to lobby regarding this are the release team, even though I know that they are also concerned about accessibility. What would be even better is if someone who is a11y oriented would join the release team. I think the new module inclusion process[1] should include formal a11y requirements. Accessibility should also find itself in the release schedule[2], just as i18n does. Eitan. 1. http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing 2. http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning _______________________________________________ gnome-accessibility-list mailing list gnome-accessibility-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-list
