PPD files

Posted Dec 13, 2005 22:49 UTC (Tue) by cventers (guest, #31465)
In reply to: PPD files by GreyWizard
Parent article: GNOME v. KDE, December 2005 edition

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

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 (guest, #31465) [Link] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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?