Re: progress of Gnopernicus

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,


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?


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