| > Just what I've always wanted from a terminal - things I can only do with a GUI and mouse. /sarcasm Just what this conversation needs - someone who fundamentally doesn't get that web browsers and their derivatives have more affordances for accessibility than a native terminal interface ever did. > This product seems to fundamentally misunderstand people that use terminals. > Either way, why is there a group of people that seems to think we desperately need to take applications that we are already running natively, wrap them in HTML/CSS/JS, throw them inside of a webview, embed that webview into a separate Chromium instance, and string it all together using a tool and execution environment designed to take a client-side single threaded web scripting language and use it for making servers? (Mugatu: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills - does nobody see this?!?) In part because this could offer secondary visualizations for data that is better without breaking anything at all, if people would stop making elaborate nose-pinching brow arching gestures every time the idea of a web browser came up. Oh, and it'd be the basis for a more robust and usable SSH option. SSH is a horrible protocol and Mosh works in very few network environments. An HTTP/2 connection and decoupling of input from user response (without appealing to line mode) would be demonstrably better. |
I do not have sight impairment, but I'm quite certain that I could navigate a fixed number of keystrokes more reliably than I could operate a mouse. If I were listening to synthesized speech dictating on-screen output, I know that the option that makes the most sense is four taps back and one up. Finding that with a mouse would be unnecessarily complex by comparison.