Blind vs. mainstream distros
Linux for blind general discussion
blinux-list at redhat.com
Mon May 1 18:06:09 UTC 2017
Hello, it's Samuel,
Chris, on lun. 01 mai 2017 10:58:33 -0700, wrote:
> As for point 1, you're always going to have to do some research as a
> blind person if you want to install any Linux distro.
Well, not necessarily, if it's done right, i.e. the documentation for
accessibility is in the expected place: the distribution manual, wiki,
etc. which tells what to type.
> And if you put "Arch Linux Blind" into a search engine, Talking Arch is
> the first thing you'll get.
I don't consider that the proper way to document something :)
> But in this built-in accessibility case, nobody actually
> tested their release to make sure that it came up talking.
Then that's the problem which needs to be fixed. I know that in Debian
for instance, because I documented how to test the speech-enabled
installer on https://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/Accessibility ,
some debian-installer people do test it before releasing.
> What I am saying is that if a distro is going to make releases
> with builtin accessibility, they better have someone on their release
> team who knows how it works and tests it on each release to make sure
> that it doesn't bitrot.
Completely agreed. I'm on the other hand saying that it doesn't have to
be someone with much accessibility knowledge. As long as the test is
properly integrated in the process of releasing, i.e. documented and
written down on the checklist, anybody can do it, and no regression
should be happening.
More information about the Blinux-list