What happened with Firefox 25?

[Krishnakant Mane]

Well, I see that Ubuntu wishes to be on tabs or phones or all other such 
machines, but I don't clearly see that the vission has accessibility 
that seriously.
These days I hear that android is quite improved on accessibility and 
has done so pritty quickly.
This is what it means by being serious about accessibility.
happy hacking.
Krishnakant.
On 10/31/2013 01:21 AM, Christopher Chaltain wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 02:19 PM, Nolan Darilek wrote:
>> On 10/30/2013 11:19 AM, Luke Yelavich wrote:
>>> If there were more resources, more effort could be put into supporting
>>> interim releases. Luke
>>
>> I agree. It's a shame that Canonical is so focused on replacing GNOME
>> with Unity, replacing Wayland with Mir, building its own cloud
>> deployment solution, putting Ubuntu on every device, that it only has a
>> single developer to spare for access, which is why I've asked for years
>> what meaningful action can be done about that. Even Android pushes out
>> accessibility improvements faster than does Ubuntu these days. But there
>> just doesn't seem like enough interest from Canonical--too busy
>> pandering to their able-bodied users I suppose--so I'm at a loss.
>>
>> The issue isn't resources. It's priorities.
>
> I agree it's a shame there aren't more resources for accessibility, 
> and it is obviously a case of priorities and not resources. I don't 
> agree though that it's a case of Canonical just pandering to their 
> able bodied users. Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical have a vision of an 
> OS that encompasses smart phones, tablets, laptops, desktops and 
> servers. I want to see this vision succeed, and I want to see ubuntu 
> rival Windows, Android and the Apple OS's. I think this will benefit 
> all computer users, including the blind. Last I knew, Canonical was 
> trying to accomplish this, and build their commercial business, with 
> around 500 employees and has yet to make a profit.
>
> I agree we should be clambering for more resources for accessibility 
> and we should be demanding that accessibility be a higher priority, 
> but I don't think that we should be asking Canonical to give up it's 
> vision to accomplish this or that we should mis characterize these 
> efforts as just pandering to their sighted users.
>