Re: Panel Accessibility (long, but please read) [was Re: PanelStatus - GNOME 2.0]

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

ERDI Gergo wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Bill Haneman wrote:
> 
> > You have already raised the spectre of a Gnome 2 without a panel (or one
> > that "doesn't work") - or was that just a rhetorical device?
> 
> reality check: a lot of us don't consider a panel not fully "accessable"
> "broken" or "not working".

These were Sander's words, he didn't mean inaccessible == broken. 
Sorry, I didn't realize that I was in part referring to a private mail. 
He was arguing I think that Panel work was resource-squeezed enough that
there was risk of not being able to deliver a Panel that functioned
correctly.  

And I wouldn't make the argument that if the Panel is inaccessible it is
"universally broken" either.  However if the Panel is inaccessible then
I think there can be no question that "Accessibility is broken".

regards,

Bill

> --
>    .--= ULLA! =---------------------.   `We are not here to give users what
>    \     http://cactus.rulez.org     \   they want'  -- RMS, at GUADEC 2001
>     `---= cactus cactus rulez org =---'
> A radioaktív macskáknak tizennyolc fél-élete van