jadahl at gmail.com
Fri Mar 11 06:13:03 UTC 2016
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:51:35AM +0100, Timofonic wrote:
> Please consider mandatory high contrast option with custom colors. I prefer black background and green foreground, it's a lie better for Mr eyes because clear colors really tire me.
There is no way for a compositor to enforce this, and it has been a
design decision so far to not let Wayland become some kind of settings
broadcaster. I'm not aware of the current situation of cross desktop
settings system except XSettings that obviously can't be used.
> Text-To-Speech and braille devices should be very seriously very taken in consideration too, please. I know many people work degenerative vision issues that will eventually very totally blind, some of them are Linux enthusiasts.
Yes these are very important things that we must support. Text-to-speech
I assume could be implemented in a similar way as input methods (like
pinyin or on-screen-keyboard). Braille keyboard support I suspect would
be implemented in libinput or something similar, and use the same
Wayland protocol as input methods (the text input protocol that is being
As for braille output, this is part of the screen recorder system (for
example Orca), which currently is done without any interaction using
> Let the the client side decide isn't a good option at all! Not homogeneous behavior and many lazy efforts would make accessibility broken very often. I've seen that lots of times!
> And please consider to involve developers having related disabilities:They would know how to implement an usable accessibility, because they use it all time and as users know what's right or wrong on many software.
> Thanks for all.
> On March 10, 2016 7:43:13 PM CET, Matthias Clasen <matthias.clasen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >I would like to discuss strategies for implementing accessibility
> >features in Wayland that will be needed for a fully featured desktop.
> >There's a whole list of individual items, but for now I'd like to
> >focus on keyboard accessibility features, ie roughly the feature that
> >traditionally labeled AccessX:
> >- slow keys (only accept key presses after a delay)
> >- sticky keys (support one-key-at-a-time operation by latching and
> >locking modifiers)
> >- bounce keys (reject quick key presses of the same key)
> >- toggle keys (special key bindings to enable the aforementioned
> >features: hold-shift-for-8-seconds for slow keys,
> >shift-5-times-in-a-row for sticky keys)
> >The following two are not technically AccessX, but are close enough to
> >include them:
> >- key repeat
> >- visual bell (all of the AccessX features have configurable bells;
> >the visual bell can be configured to be per-window or global)
> >Under X, all of these features are implemented in the XKB code in the
> >server (the visual bell gets handled by a client that selects for for
> >XkbBellNotify. In GNOME, that is mutter).
> >Wayland uses libxkbcommon to implement xkb-like keyboard handling, but
> >as far as I know, no Wayland compositor currently implements any of
> >the features I listed above. xwayland inherited the X server
> >implementation and thus, X clients do get AccessX features, but
> >Wayland clients don't. Not an ideal situation.
> >In GNOME, we have a client-side implementation of key repeat, which
> >has some issues that we recently worked around by introducing an extra
> >roundtrip before synthesizing repeat presses. I recently spent an
> >evening trying to see how far I can get in implementing AccessX
> >client-side (see
> >The results were mixed, I would say. While I have mostly working code
> >for all of the AccessX features, there are some limitations:
> >- For 'true' slow keys, the modifier keys should be delayed as well.
> >My client-side implementation does not do that, since the modifier
> >processing happens compositor-side, and I can only delay the events
> >that already have modifiers applied.
> >- I did not attempt to implement the visual bell client-side; flashing
> >the screen by mapping a fullscreen window temporarily would just be
> >too much of a hack. More recently, Jonas added a bell request to the
> >private gtk_shell interface between gtk+ and mutter, so we can now
> >reuse the existing (visual and audible) bell handling code in mutter.
> >- Handling the toggle keys client-side means that you can only enable
> >AccessX features if a client has focus; this needs to be handled in
> >the compositor so using one of these shortcuts can be the first thing
> >you do after stepping up to the computer, regardless if a client has
> >focus or not. We also loose a feature compared to the X session: under
> >X, we show a notification asking for confirmation ("Did you mean to
> >turn on SlowKeys?") when the toggle keys features are triggered from
> >the keyboard, to keep users from accidentally 'breaking' their
> >keyboard by resting their finger on the shift key. We can really send
> >notifications from deep inside a GDK backend.
> >- Doing this client-side implementation in GTK+ does not help one bit
> >for SDL or Qt or E or toytoolkit clients.
> >I know that one of the guiding principles of the Wayland architecure
> >is 'client-side', but I think the limitations listed
> >here are significant enough to argue for a compositor side
> >implementation of keyboard a11y. I don't think that this needs (a lot
> >of) new protocol, except for maybe a way to query and monitor state
> >related to these features.
> >One small complication with implementing AccessX compositor-side is
> >that we have one client that currently does it client-side: xwayland.
> >It would need a patch to force-disable AccessX there. This is also why
> >I think there should be project-wide agreement on whether these
> >features belong in the compositor or not. It would be really
> >unfortunate and bad for interoperability if we end up in a future
> >where these features are implemented server-side in GNOME, but
> >client-side in KDE or the other way around.
> >For the implementation itself, I guess it really belongs into
> >libxkbcommon, although that means it needs timers (or hooking up to a
> >mainloop). I find it intriguing that libxkbcommon/src/state.c has this
> >* This is a bastardised version of xkbActions.c from the X server which
> > * does not support, for the moment:
> > * - AccessX sticky/debounce/etc (will come later)
> >Daniel, do you still have plans in this area, or did 'later' turn out
> >to be 'never' ?
> >If not, any pointers for where somebody else would start digging into
> >this ?
> >Anyway, I'd like to hear people's thoughts about this topic.
> >wayland-devel mailing list
> >wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> Enviado desde mi dispositivo Android con K-9 Mail. Por favor disculpa mi brevedad.
> wayland-devel mailing list
> wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
More information about the wayland-devel