[brailleblaster] Re: Some Thoughts
- From: Alex Jurgensen <asquared21@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:30:42 -0800
Hi,
Not true for the Mac at least. WX works fine.
Regards,
Alex,
On 2011-02-02, at 5:07 PM, Michael Whapples wrote:
> We've discussed wx before and it was rejected. I have never really been
> satisfied with results (from an accessibility view) when using wx, even for
> some relatively simple UIs.
>
> Also the accessibility API they offer programmes is currently windows only.
>
> Michael Whapples
> On 03/02/11 00:33, Alex Jurgensen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If you wanted to use Python, there is WX-Python, essentially SWT for Python.
>>
>> I am not suggesting that we use python, this is just an observation.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alex,
>>
>> Alex Jurgensen,
>> VoiceOver Trainer,
>>
>> Visit me on the web at: http://www.vipbc.org/
>>
>>
>> On 2011-02-02, at 3:56 PM, Michael Whapples wrote:
>>
>>> My short answer is, "get over your problems with Java, it can interface
>>> with native system libraries if you want to do that". So others would be
>>> equally as able to enhance BrailleBlaster if it is written in Java or any
>>> other language, probably what matters more for customisation is the quality
>>> of the design. The arguments of what happens if Oracle were to ditch Java
>>> and so JRE's were hard to come by (an unlikely case I think, Oracle has a
>>> number of there software packages in Java and others could continue
>>> development of the JDK now Java is opensource in the form of the OpenJDK),
>>> well that applies as much to other programming languages, what if Apple
>>> feel that Python isn't worth supporting (they are behind the latest Python
>>> version by a bit), Ruby needs an interpreter, ocaml needs a compiler, what
>>> if Apple decided they could do better than objective-c as their main
>>> development language, etc. Java has a number of large companies behind it,
>>> including Apple (they are contributing to the Mac port of OpenJDK), so
>>> where's the evidence of death of Java?
>>>
>>> I will just add, actually python got some consideration near the beginning.
>>> I certainly like python, its great for quickly getting things done. The
>>> problem in python is the GUI support, it probably would have required
>>> separate GUI modules for each platform and this very well could have eaten
>>> back the advantages of python being really easy to work in.
>>>
>>> Michael Whapples
>>> On 02/02/11 23:45, Alex Jurgensen wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> What about C++, C, Rubie, or any of the other "First Class" languages.
>>>>
>>>> If we as a project built the generic UI and then left the door open to
>>>> third parties to create their own UI's, who knows, we may end up with
>>>> hands-free Braille translation software or a version of BB that only
>>>> embosses for certain people, using facial recognition.
>>>>
>>>> I know these are far fetched ideas, but there is a lot of potential to go
>>>> above and beyond the specification.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, what if a third-party made a mobile version of BB that could
>>>> sync with a modified desktop version for embossing?
>>>>
>>>> This is what we gain by making an engine that is robust and is written in
>>>> something that is easy to integrate with other programming languages
>>>> through wrappers or natively.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alex,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2011-02-02, at 3:30 PM, qubit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alex --
>>>>> you want to component out a braille translation engine separate from the
>>>>> UI -- I believe that is already the case as braille translation and
>>>>> back-translation is being handled almost completely by JohnB's C
>>>>> libraries.
>>>>> Your arguments are compelling (you almost had me convinced about objective
>>>>> C), but I think that it is not used nearly as widely as java, and its
>>>>> future
>>>>> depends on Apple's projections to take over the world as we know it
>>>>> *smile*
>>>>> I also think that separating out a language-independent way of expressing
>>>>> the UI is awkward and prone to bias.
>>>>> I think that some work could be done to produce a layer of code between
>>>>> the
>>>>> liblouis* libraries and the UI to flesh out whatever is put in the
>>>>> requirements, but I'm still not convinced that ditching java is the best
>>>>> approach.
>>>>> Just my $0.02.
>>>>> --le
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Alex Jurgensen"<asquared21@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> To:<brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 4:42 PM
>>>>> Subject: [brailleblaster] Re: Some Thoughts
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> To answer your questions, I don't dislike Java in any way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am just looking into the future. With Microsoft roomered to launch an
>>>>> apps
>>>>> store with Windows 8, and Apple having successfully launched two so far, I
>>>>> think that we must look at the direction the market is heading and not
>>>>> just
>>>>> at what would work right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started my development in Java and continue to have plans for some
>>>>> projects in Java, but I think that Java has its place, as does any
>>>>> programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to Macs representing a very small number of users, I would have to
>>>>> agree
>>>>> over all, but disagree that we can afford to ignore the platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is gaining in popularity among blind users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's say that tomorrow all desktops disappeared. What would run BB, a
>>>>> handful of tablets?
>>>>>
>>>>> As computers evolve, we can't live in the desktop paridyme. We must flow
>>>>> with the market.
>>>>>
>>>>> My suggestion of using a natively compiled language would allow us to
>>>>> secure
>>>>> against changes in the UI that we can't predict today.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest that we component out BB into a Braille translation engine with
>>>>> a
>>>>> UI as a separate component.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, if Viewplus drops support for a platform, it would be straight
>>>>> forward
>>>>> for another group to pick it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know the same can be said for writing the logic in Java, but I think
>>>>> that
>>>>> Java is a weakness in the structure of BB.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two main reasons for this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Embedded distros may not support Linux and although they form a very small
>>>>> percent of the market today, may form a bigger percentage tomorrow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, it relies on a JVM, which not only can use more resources, but,
>>>>> even if the issue of efficiency could be worked around, would rely on
>>>>> JRE's
>>>>> being maintained.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my thoughts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex Jurgensen,
>>>>> VoiceOver Trainer,
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us on the web at: http://www.vipbc.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2011-02-02, at 1:56 PM, Michael Whapples wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am going to be direct, you keep bringing it up and honesty may be the
>>>>>> only way to get to the bottom of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am getting the feeling your issue is not really with SWT but rather
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> Java. What is it about Java you don't like?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an example to why I draw the conclusion above, you say use
>>>>>> C/C++/objective-c for logic code but possibly use SWT for the UI. The
>>>>>> rationale you give for this is to have the possibility of being able to
>>>>>> develop a native GUI for the Mac. Well having the logic code in Java also
>>>>>> would allow for that as I have pointed out in the past. Java can access
>>>>>> native code and so use the platform's native GUI libraries directly. The
>>>>>> example I have given before is cyberduck http://www.cyberduck.ch, which
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> fact Apple have put in their list of applications accessible with
>>>>>> voiceover http://www.apple.com/accessibility/voiceover/applications.html,
>>>>>> look under utilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I won't say my views on the app store again, other than to mention, Macs
>>>>>> only represent a small number of users, as Linux probably does, and so
>>>>>> technologies of one platform, particularly optional ones which the app
>>>>>> store seems to be, should not drive the direction of the project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess the last say on all this could and probably does fall back to
>>>>>> ViewPlus, who are the ones wanting this project. How important is the Mac
>>>>>> to ViewPlus? What is the minimum acceptable standard of support for the
>>>>>> Mac? Oh, and I am not getting at the Macs here,the same questions should
>>>>>> be asked for the other platforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Whapples
>>>>>> On 02/02/11 17:49, Alex Jurgensen wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we use the web approach, we can style the applcations to look like
>>>>>>> native Mac apps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are the headaches that just kill me about cross-platform stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we only wrote hte main logic in something like C, Objective-C or C++
>>>>>>> and then did our UI's in SWT, that would at least give us the
>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>> to write an alternative UI down the road for the Mac.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2011-02-02, at 9:41 AM, Chris von See wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Highly unlikely - rule 2.24
>>>>>>>> ofhttp://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/mac-app-review.pdf
>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>> pretty clear:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2.24 Apps that use deprecated or optionally installed technologies
>>>>>>>> (e.g., Java, Rosetta) will be rejected
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You *may* be able to get around the rules regarding deprecated
>>>>>>>> technologies by bundling a JRE (it would almost certainly need to be
>>>>>>>> SoyLatte since you can't include anything with a third-party installer
>>>>>>>> such as an Oracle JRE for Mac). You almost certainly will not be able
>>>>>>>> to get around the requirement that the UI adhere to the Mac Human
>>>>>>>> Interface Guidelines - Java apps that don't use Apple's enhanced JRE
>>>>>>>> look nothing like native Mac apps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 2, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Alex Jurgensen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I realize that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, I think that including a JDK might solve this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2011-02-02, at 9:28 AM, Chris von See wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Java applications cannot be included in the Mac App Store. Java is
>>>>>>>>>> now considered to be an "optional" technology on the Mac, according
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> Apple.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 2, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Alex Jurgensen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was refering more to Chris' message about using STW's browser
>>>>>>>>>>> control as a UI. That would get us half way to having a web app,
>>>>>>>>>>> would it not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, that depends on how we end up doing the UI.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> About the auto updater, I am working on it because this is where I
>>>>>>>>>>> feel the most confident, creating a boot loader.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here is my question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How far along are we in the 2 year development cycle? The website
>>>>>>>>>>> does not list a date that the project was started on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have also been investigating the rules for submitting the
>>>>>>>>>>> application through Apple's Mac App Store.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know it is a little early for this, but I have read about
>>>>>>>>>>> developers who wrote entire applications that got rejected because
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> something that was too difficult to change at the time of
>>>>>>>>>>> submission.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-02-02, at 9:13 AM, John J. Boyer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry about the need to modify your application bundle, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> BrailleBlaster has always been written as one word.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you are getting ahead of us. It is too early to include
>>>>>>>>>>>> auto-updatre, and a web application is a whold divverent project.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>> have to stick to what we are doing. After BrailleBlaster is working
>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> desktop application we can consider a Web application.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 08:52:17AM -0800, Alex Jurgensen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose that the Mac issues should be resolved in any case. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would help the Mac community as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've built my boot loader now, but I can't test it yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you get a chance to look at my mock up yet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think of it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex Jurgensen,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> VoiceOver Trainer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit me on the web at:http://www.vipbc.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-02-02, at 12:19 AM, John J. Boyer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've read through all these messages, and I'm convinced we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with SWT. By the time BrailleBlaster is ready for use by anybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than a developer the problems on the Mac may be resolved. We can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little pressure to the Eclipse developers to help things along.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of using the SWT browser to present GUI content is interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The classpaths specified in the ant build.xml file go iknto the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the BrailleBlaster jar file. This makes callinng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BrailleBlaster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient on my flavor of Linux and on Windows. We could make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of BrailleBlaster for different distros, but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something for the early adapters who use these distros to worry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They will know their own flavors. And many of them won't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard locations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's learn from Alex's experience in proting BrailleBlaster to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Mac.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Concern about various Linux flavors at this time is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distraction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for me, I'm concentrating on getting BrailleBlaster to work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least generic embossers. Then I'll make a simple text editor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GUI. the experience in doing this will be necessary to make the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GUI. The text editor will remain as a BrailleBlaster feature to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by advanced users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally, BrailleBlaster is a single word. It should not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John J. Boyer; President, Chief Software Developer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abilitiessoft, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.abilitiessoft.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison, Wisconsin USA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Developing software for people with disabilities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John J. Boyer; President, Chief Software Developer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abilitiessoft, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.abilitiessoft.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison, Wisconsin USA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Developing software for people with disabilities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> John J. Boyer; President, Chief Software Developer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Abilitiessoft, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.abilitiessoft.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison, Wisconsin USA
>>>>>>>>>>>> Developing software for people with disabilities
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
