Re: progress of Gnopernicus

[David Bolter <david bolter utoronto ca>]

Janina, I think the informal bug reports often due end up as bugzilla 
reports (by the module maintainers), but you raise an interesting idea. 
 To have such a volunteer would be great!  If they don't follow through 
then they are relieved of duty by someone else I guess.

cheers,

David Bolter
Janina Sajka wrote:
> Thanks, Bill, for the clear statement about where things are with
> Gnopernicus.
>
> I'm a tad confused, though. When you write:
>
> "Perhaps those on the list who are able to use bugzilla fairly
> effectively can post a textual bug form so that we can integrate bug
> information from those without good access to bugzilla," what exactly
> are you suggesting?
>
> It seems to me fundamentally important to accept informal reports via
> the list if you really mean to collect user experiences and learn what
> actual users care about. Of course, there would nothing wrong with
> providing a simple form (in ASCII) for  users to fill out and post.
>
> I understand the tremendous value of a tool like Bugzilla, and I would
> certainly not expect that any postings on the list can actually
> substitute for such a tool. It would still be necessary for someone to
> take those postings and turn them into actual submissions via Bugzilla.
> But, who's going to step up and volunteer? And if someone does, how can
> we be assured that they'll actually follow through? The best intentions
> in the world will often fall victim to other commitments. No, I think it
> needs to be somebody's job to do that. It's unfortunate--but then one
> can't blame users for the problems with Bugzilla.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Bill Haneman writes:
>
> > From: Bill Haneman <Bill Haneman Sun COM>
> >
> > Hi Kenny, and all.
> >
> > We know there are problems with gnopernicus - but that doesn't mean we 
> > know what they all are, or which ones are the most important to users.  
> > Also, not all bugs are present in the versions that we (gnopernicus and 
> > accessibility teams) are testing.
> >
> > Bear in mind that gnopernicus hasn't actually ever "officially released" 
> > a version - you are using software that's under active development, on 
> > an unstable branch.  So it's really a very different situation from 
> > commercial offerings with supported releases - we're just not there 
> > yet.  But we really need good quality feedback from early adopters and 
> > testers like yourself - and that's the very important role you are 
> > playing now.
> >
> > When you build software from CVS HEAD, particularly when you are on an 
> > "unstable branch" of GNOME, things do break, sometimes badly.  If you 
> > want software that's stable, you'll need to stick to stable branches.  
> > However, at the moment the previous 'stable' branch of GNOME and 
> > gnopernicus are substantially less that what you'd need to get work done 
> > as a user.  We do think that the GNOME 2.6 release of gnopernicus and 
> > GNOME itself will be substantially better than 2.4 from an accessibility 
> > standpoint, but I suspect that "version 1.0" of gnopernicus (that is, 
> > the first version which the gnopernicus team feels is ready to announce 
> > as an 'official release') will be a little further down the road from 
> > there (2.6 release of GNOME is scheduled for March 8).
> >
> > Also, note that the currently available versions of Mozilla are lacking 
> > significant support, as some users have already noted.  We are trying to 
> > work closely with the Mozilla folks to get the accessibility features 
> > out there, but again, things are still in the development and test phase 
> > at the moment and no claims are being made about "product readiness" of 
> > the currently existing builds.
> >
> > I do sincerely appreciate the tremendous effort that many of you on the 
> > list continue to make in order to help us achieve a fully accessible, 
> > freely available desktop.  I hope you'll hang in there for the coming 
> > months as we continue to improve, and keep us posted on both problems 
> > and solutions as you find them.  As for bugzilla, we rely very heavily 
> > on it; basically if a bug isn't in bugzilla, it isn't being worked on.  
> > Perhaps those on the list who are able to use bugzilla fairly 
> > effectively can post a textual bug form so that we can integrate bug 
> > information from those without good access to bugzilla. 
> >
> > best regards,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > > Hi.  I don't have bug numbers.  Just the fact you guys were willing to
> > > release a version of Gnopernicus with broken flat review.  Gnopernicus
> > > is the only access technology 	I've found that realeases a new 
> > > version
> > > that gives less access than the previous one.
> > > In case you've forgoten, flat review is the only chance you have to get
> > > anything useful from the help system of Gnome applications.  That
> > > includes Gnopernicus.  How do you expect to get feedback from blind
> > > people when there is no way to find out how to use the apps?
> > >
> > >        Kenny
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnome-accessibility-list mailing list
> > gnome-accessibility-list gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-list