Not using Windows cursor
 

I just started using Sigil and have a problem - the cursor is nearly invisible. I'm slightly visually impaired and have set the cursor width in Windows (7 FWIW) using the ease of access functions. This doesn't always work (depends on the program) and in particular, it does not effect the width of the cursor in Sigil.

There is no cursor setting in the preferences that I can find. Any help available?

I don't know why various programs don't pick up the Windows settings and insist on using their own. grumble...

I can probably answer the last one in this case... Some programs are designed to work accross various operating systems and versions. That means that the code for specific operating systems is minimized as much as possible.

Perhaps there is a setting in the Qt framework that could be utilized by the programmers.

You could try using the slider at the lower right in Sigil. I typically set it at 130%. Be aware that this may give the impression that the text has been set to bold, but it has not.

Font faces for the Sigil display can be set under preferences and you could use a larger face and one which is less cramped between words making the cursor more visible. Changing this does not alter the displayed text in the ereader, just allows you to choose whatever font is more pleasing to you.

unfortunately, changing the font does not make the cursor any more visible. It remains a hair-width blinking line.

When I was an applications developer years ago, we used to design the software to use layers of code, where low layers interfaced with the OS. That meant we could provide OS specific low layers for a common high layer. Make files differentiated how the layers were combined to create the Windows, OS/2, *nix versions. My experience with later open-source projects seems to suggest that the overriding philosophy is "Linux first and screw the rest." Sigh.

... Or you could just ask nicely if one of the authors could give you an option. Qt can both adjust the thickness of the cursor, and the style (i.e block cursor).

A lot of these small windows settings are actually rather problematic to support on the Qt side of things, either they are stored in cryptic registry locations or in undocumented bitmasks (problems with either will result in unexpected behavior rather than just not working, which is at least less frustrating). As such it's more often left to the application developer to deal with.

It can be maddening for developers to get things right for one OS and find things have gone wrong with another. Calibre, which also uses Qt, has a UI that is a compromise because nothing works the same in the operating systems and Linux has a variety of desktops available. The complaints about the Calibre UI are perennial, but the developer has done the best while keeping it cross platform.

As I recall various Linux systems working differently is currently an issue with Sigil, though I don't recall the exact circumstances being a Windows user.

It might be nice to have the option of a line cursor or block cursor, if it could be available.

The developers work on this in their spare time, the lead developer having a full time job in developing payment systems and they have taken the program to extreme useability. There are always issues of one sort or another and whether they get worked on depends on how hard it is, how bad other issues are and how many users are affected.

I submitted a bug to the Sigil programmers. We'll see what happens.

I submitted the bug and got a quick response: Wontfix with no explanation.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised. After decades of working in the computer industry, I'm used to accessibility issues being ignored.

I took a quick look at the Qt documentation and the setCursorWidth(int) function is there for text editing windows (specified relatively high up the inheritance tree). However, when looking quickly through the Sigil code, I gave up trying to find the specific bit that handles the editor to see what would be involved.

You can of course sent a mail asking why it is labeled as 'wontfix'. There can be good reasons for it. Don't assume by default that it is ignored on purpose.

Most likely because it's not a bug, you need to ask nicely for accessibility features to be added (and not play victim cards) :)

Getting it from the OS adds complication to the client application which is not needed. It's nice to think things should be completely native, but as I explained earlier, in cases like these it's a pain unless its done in the toolkit. So the optional route is the only viable one.

Not to speak for the devs, but often in the past "wontfix" has meant that the issue is out of the control of the devs (e.g. a bug in Qt, or in one case dear to my heart, a strange interaction between Qt4 and the linux KDE desktop environment). In such a case, it effectively means "cantfix".

You might look at these discussions:
http://www.qtcentre.org/threads/2311...e-cursor-width
http://qt-project.org/forums/viewthread/24291

It apparently is not as easy at it seems. It looks like it makes the current character disappear!

This is BS. Sorry, but I just don't accept that over thirty years since the UN's International Year of the Disabled we still get treated as if we are asking too much just to get the same level of accessibility as anyone else.

Accessibility features have been part of most most OSes since the outset of windowing. The glaring exception is the multitude of *nix OSes - they have largely ignored them. Apple, Windows, OS/2 and others have all got the features. The problem is getting the programmers to use them. If Qt and other development products don't provide proper support, it only shows how entrenched the problem is.

As a computer consultant, I spent years fighting with programmers (rarely managers) over these things. It is simple enough to do if you consider it from the outset rather than try to patch things up as an afterthought. It's just good design.

Sorry, but you already started in that fashion from the beginning. You immediatly make it into a complaint and even added grumble. Then we tried to give some advice and what was your basic answer? 'Boe-hoe. the main developers don't take every setting in the OS into account, even if it works differently on each system'. Also, your general idea is wrong. The main developer is working on Mac, not Linux. Then you enter a bug instead of a enhancement request. Fine, can happen. You don't like the answer, fine can also happen. Instead asking the issue with it, you seems you start whining about it.
Then some people actually goes into explaining and researching for you that it is not that easy since it is in the framework used, and you don't react on that and play the victim card again.

It is very true that accessibility features should be part of it, but do not assume that it is not wanted if it is actually not possible for the developers. In this case the issue seems to be in the Qt framework. So, file a bug there. If it is solved there, programs using it can support it. Lay the blame where it should be.

Its only entrenched in distros like Slackware that're designed to make life easier on the distro maintainer, instead of the end user. All of the Ubuntu derivatives (and IIRC all Debian derivatives as well) have accessibility controls.