[Bug 964685] Re: High contrast and High contrast inverse themes are poor quality for the Unity desktop

[crippled user]

There still seems to be a set of missed issues.

Why have basics accessibility features present in 10.04 - 10.10  - 11.04
- 11.11 been either removed or rendered inaccessible in 12.04?

If they were there before, why have they not there now?

Marking the issues as Triaged does not make them go away - and it is
nice to see that someone actually noted that the issues affects more
than one person.

If Alan is to look at Themes for 12.10 - is he also to be assumed to be
looking at all issues?

I see that the Wide Issue of accessibility is getting submerged in
"Fudge" and people attempting to break it down into coded chunks!....
one step at a time!

Not seeing Wood for the Trees/Forest comes to mind.

It seems that the issue is so big that attempting to break it into
smaller coded chunks will not work - and it won't go away.

It may be something if it was possible to locate who is the one person
who has the responsibility, and even the insight, for dealing with
Accessibility on a platform wide basis.

It seems that it is not the Accessibility Team - as Alan has already
pointed out.

Is there anyone with that responsibility?

It seems that At Canonical London the view of some is that the person is
"Charlie Kravatz", as he is the person named as responsible for the web
page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Accessibility

Is it Charlie who has decided to remove basic accessibility features?

I think not - But if it is Charlie who has re-coded so much to remove
them, can that coding please be addressed as a very Big Bug!  P^)

I have been amused by some comments, that have made it to my in box, -
and being told that I need to break down every single incidence of
Failure and Blocked/Failed accessibility into a format that others can
read and understand.

It seems that this was not clear enough " 1. Start live cd - click
desktop to change background to suitable colour. Facility to maximise
window using Alt F8 has is greyed out - needs to re restored to meet
accessibility standards - and should be working in the beta.".

I have also been told that as Ubuntu is free it is, in the opinion of
some, not covered by Discrimination Legislation - and they also have
other views on what they call "Public Government" as being the only
one's who have to avoid Discriminating -  private companies, not for
profits, trusts, charities, foundations are all supposedly exempt and
can discriminate freely!

Some may be able to understand computer code, but Civil and legal code
is not their forte! They don't grasp the variables.

I am also advised that I am "Not" highlighting bugs and the bug tracker
is not the place to raise issues! There is the clear image coming though
that some don't want to hear about the matters as they are bigger than
the average bug.

However, they also can't tell me where is the place - or who the people
are that need to be contacted - so it leaves the impression that some
simply want the issue to vanish and not be raised. Make it all go away
by ignoring it....

How familiar that pattern is! It is a systemic attitude around
disability accessibility that has continued for centuries and is alive
and well in this millennium.

No-one seems to know where "System Wide" failures in Disability
Accessibility should de raised - or if there is even a place to raise
the issues. Some evidently don't care as it does not affect them.

It may be an idea for some to consider the following. A high street
retailer can not even offer Ubuntu as an option on a PC that they may
sell, even if it's free, when to do so could and even would render them
liable for failures of the OS to provide basic required Disability
Accessibility. Even if it's free and causes discrimination the retailer
has the liability.  The system is useless without OS - and so it is sold
with OS to allow it to function.

Retailers can't take the risk. Other OS's which do provide system wide
basic accessibility meeting well established standards can be offered -
and paid for. It protects the retailer.

Failing to address the basic system wide accessibility issues is
crippling Ubuntu and making end users pay for that Privilege on the high
street.

That is not just a bug - it's a basic flaw in design ethos, basic
management and even failure to grasp real world reality beyond the
Desktop.

Why is it that a Logo - colour scheme - branding decisions are seen as
Sacrosanct - and even protected by Copyright  Legislation and Controlled
by Canonical - and yet Disability Accessibility which is also covered by
legislation is deprecated, dismissed and only an optional extra - and in
12.04 not even a readily accessible optional extra?

There is a "Corporate Guardian" of the logo, Image and Branding!

Is there a Guardian of "Accessibility"?

"We believe that every computer user:

Should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.
Should be able to use their software in the language of their choice.
***Should be able to use all software regardless of disability.***
    
Our philosophy is reflected in ***the software we produce***, the way we distribute it and our licensing terms, too - Ubuntu Licence Policy."

Install Ubuntu and you can ***rest assured that all our software***
meets these ideals. "

Those ideals no longer apply to 12.04.

Does the issues of accessibility have a home with The technical board?
Or is it the community council? Or  .....????????

Some Virtual Staircases are not about the number of Steps they have - It
is about the fundamental design flaws and attitudes that allowed them to
be there at all - built one step at a time due to basic failures in
design ethos and lack of oversight.

The first step is the hardest - but after that it gets very easy to just
keep on stepping over others and ignoring the basic issues.

"Our work will be used by other people, and we in turn will depend on
the work of others. Any decision we take will affect users and
colleagues, and we should take those consequences into account when
making decisions."

Maybe this lack of Insight and Oversight is one of those SABDFL issues
that needs Big World Picture thinking and action - not how do we make it
vanish as a bug to be looked at for 12.10... and push the matter down
and away for maybe 13.04 - or 14.04.

Why has this regression been allowed and who decided that it would be
allowed?

Who has made that decision - and how can they be contacted to report the
bugs that decision has caused?

If it is an oversight and omission, who has to be contacted to have it
highlighted pro-catively and addressed pro-activley.

Which packages are responsible - who has to be contacted - is it due to
one person and bad code - is it due to deliberate decision - is it
omission ..... it is a very big issue that should have been fixed and
correct before beta release.

>From the original post:

"1. Start live cd - click desktop to change background to suitable
colour. Facility to maximise window using Alt F8 has is greyed out -
needs to re restored to meet accessibility standards."

That point is even before clicking to change any element of the Desktop!
The Window - which could be maximised - now has that option removed and
greyed out..... So where does the coding issue with that start?

Who has decided that a limited Window View when dealing with specific
areas of the OS is now default and enforced to the detriment of those
who need the previously accessible option of maximising to aid
concentration, focus etc?

Evidently the code to display the now inaccessible option is there - and
the same occurs across many Unity System Windows.

It is accessibility and untility at a far more basic level than a Unity
Theme - and that Unity Theme should already be working to allow Disabled
People to participate fully in the beta testing by having that
reasonable adjustment which has been working as standard in 10.04 etal.

The issues are not just within the selectable and broken themes such as
High Contrast and High Contrast inverse - it is a far more basic design
and ethos issue about accessibility.

Where is the code for that ethos in the File Tree under root? ..... and
how do you report the bugs and basic design errors where there is no
apprehendable code ?

It seems that it needs to be addressed more than the faulty Theme code.

Does anyone see the issue?

Screen prints showing drop down menu with option to maximise window from
10.04 - and image showing removed option from 12.04 to follow.

In 10.04 that fact that the maximise option is greyed out is addressed
by the alternative option of F8 and being able to drag edges to make the
window fill the screen - making the F8 option a Reasonable Adjustment.

In 12.04 both options are greyed out! All reasonable adjustment removed.

It is a bug - but as it does not come with on screen crashes it seems it
is to be dismissed - and the user left with the bug and reduced
accessibility.

Interestingly - the option is in the live CD for 10.04 etal from startup
- so it is possible to maximise the "Choose Test Or Install" window -
and the differences in accessibility for 12.04 with basic option removed
start there in 12.04 at the same window - so it is far wider than high
contrast themes that are broken - and starts before even getting to a
point where they can be selected.

The indication is that there has been a fundamental change in user
control and accessibility in 12.04 which needs to be looked at - as it
is system wide from boot of the live CD.

I fear that no matter how the issues are communicated - illustrated -
highlighted - they will be "Ignored" and deprecated  due to basic
failures by those who do not see well known and long standing
accessibility option  and practices as relevant to them.

"It's not and issue for me so just ignore it" is not good practice in
development.

Someone who is visually impaired would not even see the issue! That is
why I have made sure they are described so that inaccessible image files
should not block comprehension.

...and where are the options in 12.04 to change the Cursors to high
contrast - enlarge the cursor sizes and have suitable accessible
cursors?

Is it that Cursors are no longer seen as relevant or necessary on a
desktop Distro?

Where is the code for that - and who needs to be contacted? Is it a bug
in computer code, or a far bigger Bug that is in mindsets and attitudes
that need recoding?

Basic accessibility is not an optional extra - and there is "NOT" even
suitable optional extras to have a basic enlarged cursor in High
Contrast  in the Universal Access section of the Software Centre.

That all makes basic accessibility options which have been present in
10.04 to 11.10 appear to have been thrown out  - deprecated - ignored.

That makes the matter far bigger - as it again indicates that Basic
Accessibility within 12.04 has be deprecated and removed - when it
should not have been.

It seems that  Cursor accessibility system wide is just one more issue
that has suffered in the basic design management and process with
Accessibility sacrificed for other aims.

So I fear that the attempts to triage and make very significant concerns
a lesser issue have been quite poor, and the matter needs more valid,
thorough and considered assessment - The themes are far bigger than just
High Contrast and High Contrast Inverted which break the desktop.

Even if those themes are fixed it would be nice to be able to see a
cursor as well! - in fact failing to provide it is Discrimination - as
it has been there before and is now no longer there.

If the consensus is it's not a bug - who is the person - group -
committee - board - council or what ever the jargon is -  this is
responsible and capable of responding in a RATIONAL manner to bugs that
are not bugs but which are Discrimination?

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Accessibility, which is subscribed to the bug report.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/964685

Title:
  High contrast and High contrast inverse themes are poor quality for
  the Unity desktop

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-themes-standard/+bug/964685/+subscriptions