Re: 2.4 Module List and Rationale (aka GEP10 and 11)

On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 08:10, Bill Haneman wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 10:02, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > This is absolutely cool stuff - I'd like to tentatively add 'zenity' and
> > > 'battfink' to the list.
> It's great to add to the GNOME desktop to make 'desktop' closer to
> including the basic set of apps/needs common to a lot of end-users, so
> I'm in favor of making GNOME more and more 'full-featured' over time.
> That said, most new apps have at least a few places where they have
> accessibility problems since developers rarely test with different
> themes, mouse-unplugged, etc., and certainly not with GOK and
> gnopernicus (yet).  We (the accessibility group) don't want to stand in
> the way of progress, or make unreasonable demands on developers, but we
> do have limited resources.  This means that we need to be selective in
> the new applications and widgets which we assess for accessibility.
> Perhaps the best approach would be twofold:
> 	* developers interested in doing their own initial accessibility
> assessment are encouraged to do so, and we'll try to help;
> 	* the accessibility team gets a second "heads-up" for all new widgets
> and apps once they have been "approved in principle" for an upcoming
> release - with enough lead time to find and fix any serious
> accessibility bugs.

A couple of people have seemed unclear on this, so I probably need to do
some rewriting, but as it stands, the GEP 10 standards are sort of
two-part: the first part (2.3.x) is for proposal into the platform
(basically your heads up, but not a11y specific) and the second (2.4.x)
for final acceptance into the platform. In other words, when GEP 11 is
finalized, you and others could consider that a heads up and then when
time came for release you'd be able to speak up and say 'it isn't ready
yet'- in your case, under GEP 10's 2.4.3. Is that reasonable, Bill?

> Does this seem like a reasonable request?  I'd love to test-drive every
> new candidate for inclusion but it's just not feasible at the moment.

QA has the same problem. :)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]