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

[crippled user]

Please note that the lack of certain Basic accessibility features does
prevent people who need them for test driving 12.04 - and having
equality of opportunity to note, report and have what are supposed bugs
dealt with. This issue should not even be getting addressed at this
stage - it should never have arisen.

"I don't know what package the cursor thing is in, I have not seen that
before."

Any hints?

Is it an issue with Gnome-Control-Centre - which appears to be the app
that has historically allowed ready and rational access to Accessibility
Features through Right Click Desktop - Appearance Preferences - Theme -
Customise?

>From Synaptic:

"This package contains configuration applets for the GNOME desktop,
allowing to set ""accessibility configuration"", desktop fonts, keyboard
and ""mouse properties"", sound setup, ""desktop theme"" and background, user
interface properties, screen resolution, and other GNOME parameters."

Does that make it a Bug to file against "Gnome-Control-Centre"?

Is accessibility supposed to be dealt with there?

There have also been basic high contrast cursors from dmz-cursor-theme.
These appear to be installed in 12.04 under /usr/share/icons/foo/cursors
- yet there is no apparent way to utilze them - or change the size
should they be selected.

Does that make it a bug to file against dmz-cursor-theme?

The cursors are there and appear to be correctly formatted - so is it
correct to report them as a bug, or is that just wasting someone else's
time?

Is it an issue with the "System Settings" Panel - which is also an
obvious place for basic accessibility features to be accessed through
The Universal Access settings?

Presently it appears that in 10.04-11.10 it's "Appearance preference
tool" but I can't identify the same of equivalent in 12.04.

it seems that rational access by the equivalent route of right click on
desktop - change desktop image - takes you to "System Settings" where
there are no discernible accessible routes to change cursor or size.

Does that make it a bug to file against ""System Settings" Panel"?

How does one change to an installed high contrast cursor if the facility
to change cursor is not present?

Is it all the options above and Accessibility Team too?

How does one enlarge the desired cursor if that facility is also not
present?

Ditto as to where it should be filed!

It would be easier if the facility was present and not working - it may
give a hint to the end user - but as it's not present at all and is a
primary Accessibility Issue it seems to the the view that it's the
Accessibility Team who should take the lead.

It also remains unclear how matters are to be viewed. Is the lack of
basic accessibility features a bug or another issue in multiple
applications - and where does the failure lie?

I'm advised that as it's system wide it needs to be filed against either
Ubuntu - Unity - Accessibility Team or all three. But it then seems that
it is to be seen solely as an Accessibility Issue - and for the
Accessibility Team.

Is it a bug if the files or apps - controls - code needed to use a
facility have been removed and deny accessibility?

Some seem to grasp the issue if they see it and it is relevant to them -
else it's just cleared from the buffers and ignored.

As I have said - I keep being told it is a matter for the Bug Tracker
and the Accessibility Team. I have done as advised! If that advice is
wrong provide better advice!

I have raised the issues in good faith - and I am not happy at being
told I am ranting - or the idea that It should be addressed elsewhere
for others convenience. It is almost as if there is a total focus upon
code and Utility/Accessibility  has been ignored. Broken Code Trumps
Broken Basic Accessibility.

Show broken code, people are happy. Highlight Broken Accessibility when
it is not even possible to say where coding errors exist and it's the
fault of the person reporting.

It has top be filed against a package? Which package - the one that
can't be identified? Where are the missing options supposed to be?

Again - disabled people are all too used to being told to go else where
when they raise issues - and that is quite antisocial. It is not a rant
when basic accessibility provisions that should be present have been
removed and that is highlighted. If some are not affected by that issue
- or do not care - that is their issue.

It seems that there is a most basic problem as no-one seems to have
ownership of the most basic accessibility issues and provisions across
12.04.

If it is a bug "As I Am Advised", then I am in the right place!

If it is not a bug then the relevant contact details of where it needs
to be addressed would be appreciated - and in fact are required.

I have sought them - and await them - and have even been asking
Canonical London Direct - who tell me it's for The Bug Tracker and
Accessibility Team.

"This isn't a productive use of anyones time."

Oh I agree - and as there are deadlines to meet for Beta 2 and even
launch - I would expect a more proactive response so that the minimal
time available is utilised productively.

Is it the Accessibility team? Does it fall under the remit of some other
team - app - code writer?

So could I Please have the details of who has Responsibility For
Accessibility being included "Or Not" in 12.04 and I can address it to
them!

I don't to wish to waste anymore time - or have my time and good will
wasted.

If there is no such person then please provide the contact details of
the most relevant person at project level - so that the matters should
be addressed to with a view to resolution. I still await relevant
communication direct from Canonical to see if they have a better
idea.....

... and if they tell me it's the Accessibility Team AGAIN , I'll ask
them to confirm it here so that it's clear to all - Or Not - as the case
seems to be!

-- 
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