23 Feb
2005
23 Feb
'05
11:20 a.m.
Tapio Kelloniemi <persistent.spam(a)thack.org> writes:
Yup, thats what I was trying to say, just not in such harsh words :-)
--
CYa,
Mario
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:56:55AM +0100, Mario Lang
wrote:
Well, I agree partly. On the one hand, there will
always be a difference between TUI and GUI interfaces. This
is just because there are some UI elements that can not really
be easily duplicated in Text-mode. However, what is most
important is that the user actually has some way to
access the underlying functionality that the application provides.
In that sense, cglame actually fullfills this requirement,
since it (as far as I remember) allows you to do most
operations that you can do from the GUI from within Scheme.
Granted, its a hard learning curve, especially if you compare
it to how sighted people approach it (just open the damn thing,
and click around).
But neverthless, cglame is still better than no cglame.
I can try to summarize the main issues here for
you. I'm afraid I dont
know of any specific web sites which would be detailed enough
to explain the whole situation to you.
In general, at soon as some application has a text-mode
user interface (ncurses, command-line based, readline based or so on),
it is quite useable by people with visual disabilities (braille
or speech output users).
Unless the GUI and TUI interfaces differ significantly like in GLAME,
where GUI is for poor whimps (as their manual says) and TUI is for
scheme programmers. If you use
GTK2 as a toolkit, there is a slight chance your application
might be useable by the same category of users since there
is some ongoing effort to make GNOME accessible.
This Gnopernicus stuff is really in early stage and very buggy. It is
almost like trying to read a book with a microscope (the problem is
not the same, but results probably are).