[Accessibility-atspi] Accessible objects without Atk dependencies

Bill Haneman Bill.Haneman at Sun.COM
Tue Mar 28 05:03:07 PST 2006


On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 11:49, Olaf Jan Schmidt wrote:
> [ Bill Haneman ]
> > That makes sense - however any users who want or need the accessibility
> > features themselves will of course need to have the GNOME libraries
> > installed, since the accessibility stack as a whole needs them.
> 
> Last year in January GNOME offered to make at-spi and the at-spi registry less 
> toolkit-dependent that it currently is. The agreed plan was to remove 
> unnecessary dependencies, in exchange for KDE accepting the necessary 
> dependencies as a temporary solution. libbonobo was specifically mentioned as 
> an example by Peter and Bill.

I think that there may be some misunderstandings here.  We did not ever
commit to removing libbonobo dependencies from AT-SPI.  We did however
entertain a path whereby in future an AT-SPI implementation that did not
link to CORBA and Bonobo _could_ be written in a way that was compliant
with the proposed FSG standards.

> Has anything happened in the meantime about this? And if not, when can we 
> expect a release of AT-SPI and the AT-SPI registry that only uses the 
> absolutely necessary GNOME dependencies? And which libraries exactly will 
> that be?

There is no reason for the current libraries to be changed in this way,
because no value would be derived from such work.  There is much more
urgent work that needs doing.

> I am asking because we plan to use AT-SPI for several KDE4-based assistive 
> technologies. We currently have the open question whether it makes more sense 
> for us to create our own DBUS-version of AT-SPI soon, and then write optional 
> bridges, or whether we should instead focus on making AT-SPI itself 
> toolkit-independent as soon as possible.

Creating a "DBUS version of AT-SPI" in a KDE context is a bad idea, and
runs contrary to our shared goals.  Moving the whole of AT-SPI to DBUS
is something that we would certainly consider in the future.  However,
it does not make sense to make this an immediate priority.

> Note that we will need the DBUS version in any case for an at-poke-style 
> application, because this is the only way to convince KDE developers to check 
> the accessibility of their widgets. They would not like to be told to use 
> GNOME for testing KDE code.

And why not?  If there was a KDE tool that helped my GNOME applications
work better, or a KDE-based debugger that helped me test "GNOME" code, I
would certainly use it.  I would like to think that our communities have
matured beyond the "NIH" problem.

Bill

> Olaf
> 
> -- 
> Olaf Jan Schmidt, KDE Accessibility co-maintainer, open standards 
> accessibility networker, Protestant theology student and webmaster of 
> http://accessibility.kde.org/ and http://www.amen-online.de/
> _______________________________________________
> Accessibility-atspi mailing list
> Accessibility-atspi at lists.freestandards.org
> http://lists.freestandards.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-atspi




More information about the Accessibility-atspi mailing list