11–20 of 86 posts
> read powerful article on Qt being shit on accessibility
> "Sorry for claiming Free Software would be a good thing for the world."
> I shall no longer let Free Software oppress the world
> uninstall Firefox, Chromium
> launch Internet Explorer
> browse literally anywhere
> All data is now held by ransomware, must pay my savings to bigd1ckd4ddy0
> The world is now a better place
So, to recap, GTK doesn't work at all for accessibility, wxWidgets has issues with text entry, and Qt works, but only with NVDA, and not with text entry fields and JAWS. Now, Qt is an open project, so the question is: are there just no users interested in this who could implement it themselves? Most other functionality in toolkits was implemented like this.
So, to recap, GTK doesn't work at all for accessibility, wxWidgets has issues with text entry, and Qt works, but only with NVDA, and not with text entry fields and JAWS. Now, Qt is an open project, so the question is: are there just no users interested in this who could implement it themselves? Most other functionality in toolkits was implemented like this.
I don't believe anyone in the QT team is /against/ stronger support for accessibility. IMO it is understandable that fixing some piece of proprietary software is not a top priority. I believe it's more appropriate for the author to rant against JAWS for not caring about QT, than the other way around.
> Free Software is NOT about Accessibility or equality
The author is correct here. Free software is not about a specific feature, it's about protecting user's freedom. I believe the author would be warmly welcomed to discuss issues and submit patches - even fixing issues with proprietary software. He shouldn't blame a community of volunteers for not fixing his personal problems for free.
So, to recap, GTK doesn't work at all for accessibility, wxWidgets has issues with text entry, and Qt works, but only with NVDA, and not with text entry fields and JAWS. Now, Qt is an open project, so the question is: are there just no users interested in this who could implement it themselves? Most other functionality in toolkits was implemented like this.
Maybe because it's easier to solve the immediate problem by writing the UI in the target platform's native fully-accessible toolkit and dropping support for platforms that don't have one. That said, I suspect the easiest solution nowadays would be writing your UI in electron, or the Gecko-based project that was announced a week or so ago (sorry, I can't remember the name).
Makes me hesitate to assume Electron apps are accessible by default
So, to recap, GTK doesn't work at all for accessibility, wxWidgets has issues with text entry, and Qt works, but only with NVDA, and not with text entry fields and JAWS. Now, Qt is an open project, so the question is: are there just no users interested in this who could implement it themselves? Most other functionality in toolkits was implemented like this.
These are the things that are super low priority for commercial projects, and those don't usually want to leave money on the table. They're super low priority for OSS. If I recall correctly Sun paid a long time ago for usability and accessibility studies for GTK 2 and Gnome 2. And I'd guess most of their work was thrown way during the transition to GTK 3/Gnome 3 (somebody can correct me on this, I'm not really certai…
In this case, they mean "accessible" as in screen readers and assisted usage.
Isn't that the usual meaning of accessibility in software?
To them, "accessible" has its conventional or conversational definition: able to be accessed, or available. They would view the title as describing software that you can install or run on any operating system, which QT seems to supply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that the usual meaning of accessibility in software?
Yes, that is the specific, in-context meaning - but many people, even software developers, don't know that. To them, "accessible" has its conventional or conversational definition: able to be accessed, or available. They would view the title as describing software that you can install or run on any operating system, which QT seems to supply.
I find it hard to believe that software developers would not be aware of the term "accessibility" as meaning features facilitating use by handicapped users.