On Thursday 24 May 2007 13:30:40 David Zeuthen wrote: > So from an a11y point of view, ideally there should be no need > whatsoever to even show the boot loader. I can't think why you would > ever want to show it for other reasons except a lot of current > enthusiasts who like to boot from different kernels (and if the OS fails > to boot, the boot loader can be smart about things; e.g. if the OS > didn't leave a cookie in /boot it can display the menu etc. etc. The > boot loader can also check whether you're holding down the 'b' key or > whatever). > > Guess ya'll can start flaming me now for saying the boot loader menu > shouldn't be shown be default cuz I know, gosh, it's controversial :-) Heh, I don't think it's controversial at all. I think it's good to be forward looking. If we remove the necessities of having a boot menu, then having an accessable boot menu sort of falls away there too. However I don't think you can get away with that on dual boot systems where you want to be able to select what operating system you boot from. I'm all for (somebody) gathering information about the usage cases of the boot menu, and particularly accessability with it. Then looking to see if we can obviate these uses with something inside the os or just smarter bootloader configurations. Just saying "we're going to kill the bootloader timeout" will get reactions like "you can't do that, a11y will suffer!". But a more thought out approach (which is what I'm sure is meant here) makes a lot of sense. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgp6rV6cz83Se.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
