PPD files

Posted Dec 13, 2005 20:01 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026)
In reply to: PPD files by cventers
Parent article: GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition

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 (guest, #31465) [Link] (11 responses)

>> 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 (guest, #1026) [Link] (10 responses)

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 (guest, #31465) [Link] (9 responses)

1. Yes, well I was under the impression we were debating technology - not
politics 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 (guest, #1026) [Link] (8 responses)

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 (guest, #31465) [Link] (7 responses)

It's very hard for me when you keep changing what you want me to claim. I
said 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 (guest, #1026) [Link] (6 responses)

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 (guest, #31465) [Link] (5 responses)

Well, let's list out three specific quotes from you and see if we can
find 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 (guest, #1026) [Link] (4 responses)

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 (guest, #10998) [Link] (3 responses)

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 (guest, #1026) [Link] (2 responses)

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 (guest, #10998) [Link] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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.