Re: progress of Gnopernicus

[Janina Sajka <janina rednote net>]

Hi, David:

I'm sure the ideal solution is to get Bugzilla fixed. But, until then, I
don't see how else to encourage issue reports from real users. It would
certainly also make it possible to ask for more information, and I
expect people would respond to that knowing their experiences were being
turned into real bug reports. And, it would be a good PR move to post
the bug number back to the mailing list.

David Bolter writes:
> From: 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
> >
> >

-- 
	
Janina Sajka
Email: janina rednote net		
Phone: +1 (202) 408-8175

Director, Technology Research and Development
American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
http://www.afb.org

Chair, Accessibility Work Group
Free Standards Group
http://a11y.org