ppaalanen at gmail.com
Fri Mar 11 09:31:10 UTC 2016
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:46:21 +1000
Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:43:13PM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 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).
> > 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.
> > Anyway, I'd like to hear people's thoughts about this topic.
> fwiw, I fully agree that this need to be implemented on the compositor side.
> Client-side first is a nice principle for things that are client-specific
> but I see accessibility as a feature of the user, not of the software. Thus
> it falls into the same category as other user-specific features like tapping
> that are already implemented in the compositor (or even hidden inside
Yes, that sound perfectly reasonable.
I wonder, what protocol interfaces would be involved?
Would e.g. slow keys cause wl_keyboard key events to be delayed? If yes,
would you alter the event timestamps to correspond the delay, or would
they continue to be the original physical action timestamp?
I have a feeling it's a bit of a vague question, since I'm not aware of
anyone seriously using key event timestamps for anything, but I've
raised the idea of verifying key repeat count against the time between
key down and key up.
Or should "normal office keyboard usage" become input method protocols
instead of wl_keyboard, and wl_keyboard be left for "low-level" keyboard
One counter use case coming to mind are games, once again, which want
low-level keyboard events and do not want to enable e.g. slow keys or
even pop up a question if you hold a shift down. Would there be
protocol to disable input accessibility, or would using wl_keyboard
already imply that? Or should it be left just as a DE user setting one
just disables manually for everything?
Should apps opt-in or opt-out of accessibility?
Btw. Matthias guessed an implementation would belong in xkbcommon, but
that is also used client-side. How does that fit in with server-side
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the wayland-devel