galeon

[Philip Langdale <philipl mail utexas edu>]

Hi all,

Perhaps I write this at a time that is far too late, and perhaps nothing
I say will resonate as I might hope, but I have been told that one
should not go quietly into the night; so let the dance with futility
begin.

And to anyone who would complain that this has been done to death,
please bear in mind that this is the first time we've spoken up.

We (the galeon team) have had a minimal presence on ddl; the only
significant item of note being ricardo's formal proposal of galeon
for the 2.4 module list, and one can only imagine that such a low
profile does not do wonders for one's position in a debate such as
the one over adopting it or epiphany as GNOME's browser. I suppose
that I use 'debate' somewhat loosely as it's been rather one-sided
to say the least. That's also been why I've been disinclined to
say anything up until this point; one does not easily turn a
concensus. Nevertheless, I'm told that we're open minded people so
perhaps what I say may be illuminating or useful in some way.

It has been disturbing how little is known about galeon by the
people who discuss it here and will eventually be making the
decision about adoption. I did ask havoc to actually take a look
at the program which he apparently did, though he only summarised
his findings. Details on what he didn't like or what could be
improved would be very much appreciated; and that goes for everybody.
We've recieved a lot of vague and non-constructive complaints in
the past with regard to HIG compliance and the like. Things will
not be quick to change without specific problem descriptions, and
suggested solutions are always welcome.

There is certainly a perception amongst some that galeon 1.3.x is
somehow galeon 1.2.x but simply ported to the gnome2 platform. This
was not true when marco was running things (and we didn't hear it
very much then) and it is no more true now. I'm not really sure where
this one started, but it's frustrating to say the least. We are also
sniped at by disaffected members of our existing user base complaining
that we're taking a scyth to any and all useful features; It is not
fun to be sitting in the middle of these sorts of ignorance powered
condemnations.

My teammate Tommi Komulainen has asserted that there need not be a
dichotomy between HIG compliance and providing power and flexibility
to the user, though there are those that would gladly declare such
a relationship whether in a positive or negative light. And it is based
on this assertion that we have tried to proceed; and I believe that we
have been decently successful in this regard. It seems horrifying to me
that someone can seriously claim "we can't do that because we can't fit
in a menu item for it in a compliant way". That seems to reveal a lack
of imagination more than anything else.

I'm not going to go into the gory details of why marco left, as it's
not really the point, but the rest of us felt that he had gone to far
in stripping galeon down to the point where it ceased to be a program
that we'd actually use ourselves; and then, what's the point anymore?

We've been focusing on getting functional parity with the old 1.2.x
code base, and it's been slow going; both due to excessive external
commitments on the part of the team members and in trying to be careful
as to how these things are done. Nevertheless, those who've cared to
pay attention and actually use the program are generally impressed.

I don't think it is particularly constructive to go through a probably
mind-numbing feature list, but I'd encourge everyone to actually
take a look at the program as it stands today and make an informed
decision about it.

We have been, are, and will continue to be, open to, and happy to
recieve, suggestions on usability improvements and accessibility,
though hopefully not of the "take it out" kind... And at least we
have a sane bookmark system. :-)

With respect to the issue of a11y which has been discussed here
intensively, I'd echo the existing arguement that an a11y broken browser
is better than no browser and that official status will provoke work
(and hopefully extra hands!) to get things working.

Though we are more and more disillusioned these days, we do believe
that we've produced something that can be a consistent part of the GNOME
desktop and a useful tool for users. If nothing else, we'd like to see
our work condemned from an informed position.

respectfully,

--phil