Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
PPD filesPPD filesPosted Dec 13, 2005 19:21 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)In reply to: PPD files by GreyWizard Parent article: GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition
You seem to be misunderstanding him. The difference you posit does not
(Log in to post comments)
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:33 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Making the last remark you made is a bit like me saying "Why can't disabled people have their Human assistants read the screen for them?" Because if they won't do so, it's their fault they can't use the computer - right? This is purile sophistry. Why do you have so much trouble admitting that there is an important difference between being unable to access a computer at all and losing the benefit of advanced printer features?
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:40 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] >> What I'm really talking about is the difference between providing>> acess to "all of a printer's capabilities" to a user who won't look up >> the instructions for using lower level mechanisms The point is that requiring a user to look up instructions for using low level mechanisms makes that functionality 'off-limits' to most users, despite how many of them might actually find it useful. The only difference between not being able to access the computer at all and not being able to access advanced printer features is a mangitude of how much you cannot do. Both concerns are addressed by adding features to software that a vast majority of the users won't end up using. This was my original point, and you seemed to be implying that accessability software got some kind of magic exception from the "don't implement unless it's used by a majority of users" rule just because we were talking about disabled people instead of non-technical people.
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:01 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] you seemed to be implying that accessability software got some kind of magic exception from the "don't implement unless it's used by a majority of users" rule just because we were talking about disabled people instead of non-technical people. I've said nothing about the policy by which Gnome developers select features to implement (though actual Gnome developers on this thread have explictly disclaimed your characterization), but you've almost grasped the point I'm making. Being a non-technical person is a choice, such a person can gain technical knowledge and getting a more technical person to install a PPD file is an operation that needs to be done once. Being blind is not a choice, there is no practical way to regain sight and having an assistant read the screen must be done continously forever. These qualitative differences make your argument weak.
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:21 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] >> These qualitative differences make your argument weak.Your argument is dangerous to the future of the Linux desktop, if it is to have one! Advanced printer utilization is not rare enough that it is acceptable to require end-users to seek out technical people, or to cover the VAST domain of knowledge between working with a GUI and working with text-based configuration on the command line (complete with all the idioms you need to understand to get from point A to point B), merely to print a report! Let's break this down into pieces and find out which parts you disagree with. Please address 1 point at a time. 1) Accessability software enables a small portion of the public to do something they couldn't otherwise. 2) Advanced printer configuration would enable a larger portion of the public to do something they couldn't otherwise. 3) Learning to work with PPDs directly is not practical for the vast majority of these users. 4) Hiring an assistant to read the screen is not practical for the vast majority of disabled users. If you agree with 1-4 (and you should), then the only possible thing you are left with is this idea of 'choice'. I submit that not understanding PPD files isn't much of a choice either. 1) Blind people can get around being blind on the computer by hiring an assistant, in theory. It would quite suck, but it's a *choice*. 2) Corporate users can get around not understanding PPD files by hiring a assistant, in theory. It would quite suck, but it's a *choice*. You made some smaller points, so just for thoroughness: 1) Well, it depends on what exactly we're talking about when you say that the PPD scenario would only occur once. But in any case, if your desktop design philosophy makes this expectation, how often do you suppose a user might run into these unrecoverable pot holes during their computing experience, requiring the attention of a seasoned expert? 2) As for GNOME developers disclaiming my idea of their policy, well, they've verbally disclaimed it, but I so far have not seen an ounce of reason that leads me to believe they are telling me something that is consistent with the actual philosophy in practice. If so, perhaps you or someone else could tell me - if advanced printer features were not to be excluded because (a) most people don't need them, or (b) they confuse people, why were they going to be excluded? Now where exactly am I going wrong?
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:06 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Your argument is dangerous to the future of the Linux desktop, if it is to have one! Nonsense. 1) Accessability software enables a small portion of the public to do something they couldn't otherwise. While technically true this is simplistic. A commitment to support disabled users where possible speaks to the values of a society in a way that advanced laser printing does not. 2) Advanced printer configuration would enable a larger portion of the public to do something they couldn't otherwise. Do you have sound statistical evidence to support this claim? Most of the printers people buy for their homes don't need PPD configuration and not all of those that do need it for basic features. Most advanced laser printers are installed in office environments where a system adminstrator can deal with configuration. In between there are people who are not affraid to read enough documentation to configure PPD files with or without a pretty graphical tool. Are the remaining users who have such printers and refuse to use the command line more numerous than the blind or elderly who need assistive technologies? I don't know. But don't pretend to know if you don't. 3) Learning to work with PPDs directly is not practical for the vast majority of these users. Really? So the vast majority of users who want advanced laser printing can't operate a search engine or read CUPS documentation? 4) Hiring an assistant to read the screen is not practical for the vast majority of disabled users. Irrelevant. Even where it is practical assistive technology will cost less and provide more independence and privacy for such users. 1) Blind people can get around being blind on the computer by hiring an assistant, in theory. It would quite suck, but it's a *choice*. 2) Corporate users can get around not understanding PPD files by hiring a assistant, in theory. It would quite suck, but it's a *choice*. Do you really not see the glaring differences here? Corporate users generally call such assistants system administrators and they hire them regardless of whether they need to make advanced laser printer features. Asking them to spend an hour or two out of a year to deal with such a routine task is not comparable to asking a disabled person to have their experience with a computer mediated by a full time assistant. But in any case, if your desktop design philosophy makes this expectation, how often do you suppose a user might run into these unrecoverable pot holes during their computing experience, requiring the attention of a seasoned expert? You don't know anything about my design philosophy, on the desktop or anywhere else. I don't particularly care whether the Gnome print dialog supports PPD configuration or not. Go ahead and use KDE if you are disappointed with the way Gnome works. Go ahead and encourage othersto do the same too. All I ask is that you stop pretending that support for disabled users and advanced laser printing are comparable. They're not.
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:35 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] 1. Yes, well I was under the impression we were debating technology - notpolitics or ethics. 2. Ignore the home users, because they'll start using desktop Linux after their office does. The office is the #1 important ground for desktop Linux to take first. And sure you don't need configuration for basic printing in most cases. But should you banish your users to the command line every time they want their printer to do staples for them, when they're in a hurry to make it to the next meeting? I should hope not! And I *am* making the assertion that this "minority" is larger than the percentage of people using accessibility tools, because I've never seen anyone use an accessibility tool (though I know people do) while I'm sitting here in telecom corridor surrounded by office buildings with lots of computer users and lots of printers. If Desktop Linux is to make it here, the only way full printing support could ever be considered less important than accessibility support is if someone is deliberately trying to appeal to people's sensibilities over simple practicality. 3) They can operate a search engine, and they can technically read CUPS documents. But my grandma could technically read a car's FSM -- that doesn't mean it would be *at all* practical for her to rebuild her Honda 2 liter. 4) "Assistive technology" like being able to use your printer without reading CUPS docs and hitting the damn command line will cost less and provide more independence for corporate users! >> Asking them to spend an hour or two out of a year to deal with such a >> routine task is not comparable to asking a disabled person to have >> their experience with a computer mediated by a full time assistant. If you don't understand that this requirement for a third party assistant is equally prohibitive in a corporate environment then you know nothing about business. The big Linux vendors will never sell into an enterprise if the customer knows they'll need system admins to assist on a user's command line for changes to simple things like printing. Shared calendar support in Outlook that *no one* used at my own company was enough reason to drop a flawless, high-performance, already-paid-for Linux/qmail IT rack in favor of recurring-expense, off-site, hosted Exchange. Business features are important to businesses and while YOU may think it's fine to leave your users out in the cold, the rest of the world is going to do like Linus Torvalds and vote with their feet. >> All I ask is that you stop pretending that support for disabled users >> and advanced laser printing are comparable. They're not. I've been making the comparison along with many others. Perhaps your trouble is that you're unable to acknowledge that a world exists outside your little bubble. If you're into software design, I should hope you correct this, because you're not going to please many users that way.
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 22:13 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] I've been making the comparison [between assistive technology and PPD printer configuration] along with many others. Perhaps your trouble is that you're unable to acknowledge that a world exists outside your little bubble. No, my "trouble" (to the extent that I have any) is that this is the only point I'm interested in. I don't care about your messianic predictions about people abandoning Gnome or your pseudo-science explanations of the reasons Gnome developers implement some features and not others. The reason I haven't responded to your rants on these subjects is simply that I don't care what your opinions are. And while I'm touched by your concern about my business sense and success as a software designer, I'm afraid I don't find you credible enough to pay much attention to your opinions in these fields either. All I want is for you to admit that bringning the disabled into the online world is more important than configuring PPD printers. Is that so hard for you?
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 22:39 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] It's very hard for me when you keep changing what you want me to claim. Isaid nothing about bringing users into the online world. In fact, I never said accessibility utilities weren't important - quite the contrary, since my argument for the equal necessity of good PPD support in the GUI rides on it! >> All I want is for you to admit that bringning the disabled into the >> online world is more important than configuring PPD printers. It sounds to me like you want to use the inverse of the argument you wish I never made as an excuse for not implementing good printer support in Gnome. Is that the case?
PPD files Posted Dec 14, 2005 0:11 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] It's very hard for me when you keep changing what you want me to claim. Exactly what about my position do you imagine I've changed? Maybe the reason this is so hard for you is that you're not especially bright. That's a tempting conclusion when considering the "arguments" you've presented so far. It sounds to me like you want to use the inverse of the argument you wish I never made as an excuse for not implementing good printer support in Gnome. Is that the case? No. That's a completely preposterous question. Are you even reading what you respond to? Show me where I have taken a position one way or another on whether Gnome or KDE has better printing support. Show me where I have compared the design philosophy of the two teams or in any way advocated one over the other on this thread. Here's a hint: I haven't. I'm certainly not going to begin debating such things with someone too dim witted to understand that accessibility is more important than printers that staple pages.
PPD files Posted Dec 14, 2005 3:14 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] Well, let's list out three specific quotes from you and see if we canfind the (in)consistency. >> Why do you have so much trouble admitting that there is an important >> difference between being unable to access a computer at all and losing >> the benefit of advanced printer features? You posit an important difference... >> All I ask is that you stop pretending that support for disabled users >> and advanced laser printing are comparable. They're not. Then you say there is no way to compare them... >> All I want is for you to admit that bringning the disabled into the >> online world is more important than configuring PPD printers. Is that' >> so hard for you? Then you say that bringing disabled users into the 'online world' is more important than the printer features. When did the 'online world' enter into this debate? Why and how? The same way the morals / ethics kneejerk to the comment that "printer drivers are equally important to accessibility tools" did - you simply thought it would be a nice way to argue? You might want to take your head out of the sand and look around... many more people care about this issue than I, and your attitude is very obviously defective for someone that's supposed to care about things that work well for their users. You won't convert me to GNOME, but that's OK, because I'm just another programmer. But there are a lot of users that haven't been converted to either KDE or GNOME, or perhaps ones looking to switch. If you care at all about attracting these people, banishing the capability to do anything non-default about their printer to the command line is very much not the way to welcome them with open arms. And that makes you a run of the mill stupid engineer, because stupid engineers are the people that not only design for themselves (which isn't wrong as often as it's sometimes said) but actually flat out ignore the idea that anyone else without an engineering degree might one day want to use the product. Good job :) In any case, I'm going to stop responding to your nonsense... if anything makes me feel "not very bright," it's the feeling like I've been baited into wasting my afternoon to argue with the functional equivalent of a coke machine.
PPD files Posted Dec 15, 2005 15:08 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] You posit an important difference... Then you say there is no way to compare them... Then you say that bringing disabled users into the 'online world' is more important than the printer features. This is nothing but word games -- that is, sophistry. In context, when I say the two things are not comparable I'm refering to the absurd comparison you made at the beginning: "99% of the current Linux desktop market probably doesn't have damn bit of need for a screen reader / magnifier / sticky keys." You are comparing a refusal to support printer PPD configuration with refusing to support accessibility features. This comparison is invalid (regardless of whether Gnome developers actually have done so as you allege and others refute) because there is a qualitative difference between the two. You could admit this rather obvious fact without otherwise modifying your militant stance against Gnome. But then you wouldn't seem like such a moron and what fun would that be? When did the 'online world' enter into this debate? More word games. "Online" in this context is merely a shorthand for direct access to computers and the internet. I am clearly not attempting to expand the detate to some other subject with this phrase. The same way the morals / ethics kneejerk to the comment that "printer drivers are equally important to accessibility tools" did - you simply thought it would be a nice way to argue? Your creative grammer makes it impossible to be sure, but I can only assume you mean by this to accuse me of introducing nastly old morals into a lofty debate about technical issues. If so you're wrong as usual. This has more to do with logic and common sense than morals or ethics. I've explained this elsewhere. You won't convert me to GNOME, Why do you have so much difficulty grasping that I don't care which desktop you or anyone else uses? You are so bent out of shape over the difference between Gnome and KDE that merely by pointing out a flaw in your windy and incoherent statements that is completley unrelated to which is better I have become some sort of evangelist for the enemy in your eyes. Amusing.
PPD files Posted Dec 16, 2005 6:56 UTC (Fri) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] Back in the real world, there is no qualitative difference between the two. They're both people who can't use the system to do what they need. There's always going to be someone out there who could use the system if only you made some small change.
PPD files Posted Dec 17, 2005 0:19 UTC (Sat) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Do you actually want to pretend there's no qualitative difference between being unable to use a subset of the features of a subset of printers (assuming the command line is off limits) and having no way to access to email, the web, office productivity tools or any of the innumerable things a computer can offer? You seem less like a credible emissary from the "real world" than just another space cadet.
PPD files Posted Dec 17, 2005 22:21 UTC (Sat) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] Not a subset of printers, their printer. Assuming the command line is not off limits, the blind can access email, the web, and most of the innumerable things a computer can offer without GNOME's assistence.
PPD files Posted Dec 19, 2005 1:09 UTC (Mon) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] By that reasoning, there could be no qualitative difference between Gnome and Bash because both offer enough features for some users but lack features others require. But common sense recognizes that they are not directly comparable. That's why alternative implementations of accessibility features are irrelevant. A Gnome that didn't have such features would have to be abandoned entirely by disabled users while a Gnome without PPD configuration could be used for everything except that relatively narrow task. This difference in the quality of the user experience is the issue.
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:18 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] Being a non-technical person is a choice, such a person can gain technical knowledge and getting a more technical person to install a PPD file is an operation that needs to be done once.If this is the general opinion of GNOME developers, then I'm keeping GNOME far away from nontechnical people who rely on me for technical advice. They shouldn't need to jump the chasm from dumbed-down GUI to command line, or call me, in order to take full advantage of their computers. They should be able to discover the more advanced features for themselves through their own exploration. They shouldn't have to go off and independently become the sort of Unix people that GNOME expressly prefers to dismiss anyway.
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:54 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] First, I never claimed to speak for the Gnome developers. Pretending otherwise in order to smear a group of people is intellectually dishonest on your part. Second, you have completely misunderstood what you are responding to. I never said it was good for PPD configuration to be more difficult, all else being equal. Everything I've written on this thread concerns the relative importance of accessibility and PPD configuration, which your comments don't address at all. You've taken a quote out of context and used it as an excuse for an ignorant rant. Pay attention before posting angry words unless you enjoy making an fool of yourself in this way.
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 23:37 UTC (Tue) by rleigh (subscriber, #14622) [Link] >>> What I'm really talking about is the difference between providing>>> acess to "all of a printer's capabilities" to a user who won't look up >>> the instructions for using lower level mechanisms
>The point is that requiring a user to look up instructions for using low
>The only difference between not being able to access the computer at all
The PPD file tells the printing system what the capabilities of the printer are. They are useful for all printers, from a top of the range beast that occupies an entire room, through to small cheap inkjets. Without them, the printing system wouldn't let you choose the print quality and speed, paper type and size, and other basic options through to more esoteric features such as stapling, colour profiles, duplexing etc. They aren't something that can be ignored.
As a result of not supporting PPDs in *any* form, you can't do anything but print with the print queue defaults, giving the user zero control over printing. It can't even let you choose a paper size the printer can cope with. Printing under Gnome is painful at best, and completely inadequate the rest of the time. This is not usability. Rather than hiding advanced options, it provides no options at all...
KDEPrint (kprinter) has solved the problem for several years now, and supports all the major print spoolers in a general fashion (with plugins). Its printing support is top-notch. The reason why it wasn't done for Gnome is because instead of reimplementing this ideal solution, they wanted to reinvent the wheel, and avoid PPDs (supporting them just as an option). I discussed this with the maintainer at the Linux Printing Summit in Bordeax in 2004.
Roger
No sophistry involved Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:54 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] You say magnifiers and sticky keys are essential to some people who otherwise can't use their computers, even though they could have a hired assistant reading or typing for them at extra expense, yet you deride people wanting GUI access to all PPD capabilities which enable them to use their printers, by saying they should hire a sysadmin to use a command line for them.
Tell me again the difference between hiring a sysadmin and hiring a reading and typing assistant. --- No wait, I'll tell you. Sysadmins cost a lot more and thus are only used by rich wealthy bastards, while reading and typing assistants humiliate the differently enabled persons who have to hire them. That sounds about right. Pardon me if my politically correct jargon is not quite up to snuff, my personal translator assistant hasn't shown up for work today.
I have been rolling my own fvwm-based X for years. Once in a while I will try Gnome or KDE just to se what I am supposedly missing. I was a bit distressed when Slackware dropped Gnome. But your politically correct posts have convinced me that the Gnome mindset has nothing to do with my future.
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 19:59 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] Why do you have so much trouble admitting that on some printers, the "advanced" functionality may be essential to getting it working at all? Or are those of us who want to use cheap and readily available laser printers at high altitudes supposed to know that we can't find the feature in the GUI, and will have to tackle complex command line stuff?In any case, even without a screen magnifier, someone blind could use a braille terminal, or get a friend. In addition, you could have the person who'd set your magnifier up set your screen up at a ridiculously low res (e.g. 300x200 on a 25" 4:3 CRT), with a larger (e.g. 1024x768) virtual desktop. The software isn't needed if you have the right hardware, but it sure helps make life easier.
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:19 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Or are those of us who want to use cheap and readily available laser printers at high altitudes supposed to know that we can't find the feature in the GUI, and will have to tackle complex command line stuff? Yes. Using a command line is not rocket science. Or use KDE. But stop pretending that support for PPD files in the graphical interface is as important as accessibility features. It's not.
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:25 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] If you don't think GUI support for PPD files is as important asaccessability features, don't implement it. Just watch how fast people continue to bitch about your archaic printer support, especially as KDE's print system continues to leave you in the dust, even being the deciding point in a GNOME vs KDE Linux desktop rollout of size. Sooner or later one or two things simply has to happen: 1) GNOME gets real printing support -or- 2) People stop/don't start using GNOME in environments where printing is at all important
PPD files Posted Dec 14, 2005 12:53 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] You're not very imaginative, cventers. I suggest you look up the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
3. Printers become obsolete in 2012 so nobody cares anymore.
...and so on.
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:34 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] I used the example of a screen magnifier for a reason; with a default X.org configuration on an EDID capable system, or a correctly set up XFree86 on any system, you don't need a magnifier application. You can use Ctrl-KP Plus and Ctrl-KP Minus to switch down to some small resolutions (400x300 is the smallest EDID resolution on my 21" CRT, which is normally run at 1600x1200).Why do you say that the minority of users who need a magnifier application (but not other accessibility features) are so much more important than the minority of users who need access to "advanced" PPD features to make their printer work at all that GNOME needs several ways to make things OK for the magnifier users, but that people who want to print should learn the command line?
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 21:45 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Why do you say that the minority of users who need a magnifier application (but not other accessibility features) are so much more important than the minority of users who need access to "advanced" PPD features to make their printer work at all that GNOME needs several ways to make things OK for the magnifier users, but that people who want to print should learn the command line? I didn't. Those are your words. The subtext of your question is this: why is bringing the disabled into the online world more important than making it as easy as possible to configure PPD printers? That the answer isn't obvious to you speaks volumes.
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 22:49 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] Look, do you want a quick and simple answer to your stupid question?Advanced PPD configuration is NOT more important to bring disabled into the online world. These two items, in both a technological and a business perspective, in the context of GNOME being anything beyond a child's toy in the office environment, are equally important! The only way that accessibility becomes a more important concern is if you're talking about moral / ethical concerns. This debate is not at all about morals or ethics, but you were so eager to shred any part of my original argument that you foolishly attempted to turn it into one. Now that you're focusing on accessibility being "more important" than a "different issue you can't compare" as you did originally, you're seeming to imply that because there are remaining accessibility battles to be fought, PPD configuration doesn't matter. If that's really the case, so be it. I'm making a random assumption at the moment that you are at all involved with the development of GNOME - if so, open source being more evolutionary than its proprietary brother, you can be quite sure Darwin will come knocking.
PPD files Posted Dec 15, 2005 15:08 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Advanced PPD configuration is NOT more important to bring disabled into the online world. At last you admit the equivalent of two plus two is four. Well done! What a pity you couldn't resist adding that this holds only for some values of two: The only way that accessibility becomes a more important concern is if you're talking about moral / ethical concerns. This debate is not at all about morals or ethics, but you were so eager to shred any part of my original argument that you foolishly attempted to turn it into one. Accessibility is more important on the basis of logic and common sense. Let's replace disability with something more morally and ethically neutral and see what happens: Suppose we have two users with no physical handicaps. Both have computers and PPD printers that they would like to use their full capacity. The first user has an operating system which is perfect in every way except that it has no graphical support for configuring the printer. The command line is available but very scary. The second user has an operating system which is perfect in every way except that it has no support for graphical display of any kind, including text consoles. Which of these users has the more important problem? Now that you're focusing on accessibility being "more important" than a "different issue you can't compare" as you did originally, These seem different only because you are so determined to twist words that you can't see the forest behind all the trees. Accessibility is not comparable to PPD printing in the crabbed way you attempted in your original post. This is true because you started with the assumption that both were of equal importance. Maybe if you made fewer "random assumptions" this would not be so difficult to understand.
PPD files Posted Dec 15, 2005 21:06 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] I want you to re-read my original remarks to which you objected:>> If you want an extreme example of where this "minority" attitude >> breaks down, let's consider accessibility features for a moment. 99% >> of the current Linux desktop market probably doesn't have damn bit of >> need for a screen reader / magnifier / sticky keys. But you'd get >> flamed off the planet for suggesting that we forget about this >> 'accessibility nonsense' on the grounds that the desktop should Just >> Work for the Majority. If you think for a second that reading documentation and interacting with CUPS on the command line for non-default printing is not an _absolute_ barrier to usage for 90% of corporate computer users on the planet, you're missing: >> logic and common sense Scenario 1: A large number of corporate users can't use GNOME because it sucks bad at printing. Scenario 2: A small number of people can't use GNOME because they can't see and it lacks a screen reader (hypothetically, if it did). In Scenario 1, a group of users cannot use GNOME because it lacks critical functionality. In Scenario 2, a group of users cannot use GNOME because it lacks critical functionality. Now, tell me, what piece of critical functionality are _YOU_ missing to imply that these two things are totally different / can't be compared? I never implied the disabled weren't important - quite the contrary, in fact. But to claim that people who print aren't at least as important is (see Linus's big F word) INSANE.
PPD files Posted Dec 17, 2005 1:58 UTC (Sat) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Scenario 1: A large number of corporate users can't use GNOME because it sucks bad at printing. Scenario 2: A small number of people can't use GNOME because they can't see and it lacks a screen reader (hypothetically, if it did). I've already pointed out that you have presented no credible data to substantiate your claim about which group of users is larger. Without that you're merely speculating. But even so you're on shaky ground for two reasons. For one thing, whether you care to admit it or not, most so-called "corporate users" are supported by system administrators who are quite capable of reading documentation and configuring things on the command line. For another, the second group will include elderly users who are not necessarily blind but have impaired visual and motor abilities which probably makes it larger than you imagine. Nevertheless, the relative sizes of the groups is not the real issue. But to claim that people who print aren't at least as important is (see Linus's big F word) INSANE. Nowhere have I claimed that one person or group of people was more important than any other. Quote the text that lead to you to believe that and I'll clarify what you have misunderstood. The point I've been making (again and again and again...) is that coping with a missing feature that prevents a user from accessing a computer in any way is qualitatively different from coping with a missing feature that prevents a user from accessing a subset of features of a subset of printers. Leaving a user unable to make a printer staple automatically is preferable to leaving one without access to email, the web, office productivity tools or indeed anything a computer could possible do -- not because the second user is more important but because the first has a much smaller burden to bear. Admitting this does not require you to concede that Gnome is in any way better than KDE, that the printing support the former provides is adequate in general or that any particular decision made by the designers of the former is appropriate. But it does require you to think of something other than your bruised ego. Can you manage that?
PPD files Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:42 UTC (Tue) by Frej (subscriber, #4165) [Link] I'm guessing the choice was1) a working printer dialog without every ppd option 2) fantasy print dialog with every option
It all comes down to someone doing the work.
There is a gnome-cups-manager module in cvs. But you have to know it exists. It seems to provide every ppd option for my driver here.
More often than not issues are bugs and missing features and not forced by "design".
|
|||||||||||