[Accessibility] Updated CSUn Proposal Draft

Olaf Schmidt ojschmidt at kde.org
Sun Oct 14 23:22:31 PDT 2007


I realise that my email was misleading.

I agree 100% that we should aim for a toolkit-neutral, industry-standard 
implementation of AT-SPI.

It is crucial for the future of AT-SPI that we can all agree on a common 
approach. That Trolltech and KDE agree on using the AT-SPI API for D-Bus is 
not enough. We also need SUN and IBM to accept D-Bus. My impression is that 
we have reached this consensus during the last phone conference.

The reason I am insisting on describing the status quo technically correct is 
simply that key members of this workgroup have repeatedly accused me of 
objecting to Bonobo for purely "philosophical reasons", ignoring the Hawaii 
discussions and all the other emails and phone conferences on the topic. They 
have suggested to leave the AT-SPI implementation unchanged, believing that 
the existing implementation is all we need. If we declare the existing 
implementation as "toolkit-neutral", then we might spread this 
misunderstanding by obfuscating the problems that force us to take the D-Bus 

I was not a member of this workgroup when the NSF proposal was written, but 
nevertheless I agree that the language used is our common goal. The main 
problem with the formulation that I objected to is that it does not clarify 
whether it talks about the existing AT-SPI implementation or about the AT-SPI 
API that we are planning to standardise and that we can port to D-Bus.

It is too difficult to make this distinction between implementation and API in 
the CSun proposal, so it probably makes sense to some kind of middle ground 
as suggested by Willie. I still do not like the word "toolkit-neutral", for 
it implies that the chosen toolkit has no influence at all on the ability to 
use AT-SPI. I suggest we rather use "cross-toolkit".

We would then have the sentence:
"Originally developed for GNOME, the Assistive Technology Service
Provider Interface (AT-SPI) is a cross-toolkit interface between
applications and assistive technologies"


More information about the Accessibility mailing list