Re: Guadalinfo Accesible case study

[J. Félix Ontañón <fontanon emergya es>]

El día 23 de enero de 2012 21:28, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs igalia com> escribió:
> Hi Félix.

Hi Joanmarie!
Really thank you for taking some time here!

> On Sun, 2012-01-22 at 18:55 +0100, J. Félix Ontañón wrote:
>> Hi again. Please find in the following link the refered document,
>> both in editable and printable format.t both in english and spanish.
>>
>> http://fontanon.org/gnomea11ycaseAndalusia.zip
>
> If it is decided that your proposed document is worthy of inclusion
> on any GNOME site and/or distribution elsewhere, I would encourage
> you to do the following:

Of course, all your suggestions will be really appreciated:

> Proofread the English content. I sympathize *completely* with the work
> required to write a document in a language other than your own. That's
> why I get my Spanish colleagues (several of them) to review anything I
> write in Spanish.

As the document hasn't been published elsewhere, you can take this as a Draft.
I considered to look for the help of better english speakers than me.
Finally I declined before knowing if the document is useful for
someone. It's not so easy to task anyone to review a 19 document.

> You have the bold-text statement "A very important part of the project
> was several improvements on GNOME desktop accessibility by adding new
> features and applications that previously didn't exists." From my read,
> that seems to suggest that new GNOME applications were created as part
> of this project and upstreamed by GNOME. If so that's great, but...
> which GNOME applications were created exactly? If the answer is "none,"
> I would rephrase your bolded text to be more clear about what work was
> completed where.

The point is that even in the original spanish text it slightly seems
to mean that.
It needs to be rephrased, absoutely.

> I think it would be worthwhile to distinguish the features which were
> upstreamed and verified as working from those which are downstream-only
> and/or unverified. For instance:

In fact, the document is more focused on being interesing (and
encouraging) for deployers than developers.
Do you think to distinguish wherer a feature was added or not it's
really needed?

>      * There is no "keyboard profile similar to JAWS" in Orca.

Not in upstream, but at least it was developed for the project.

>      * Whatever work was done to achieve "seamless integration with
>        Voxin" was presumably not required by Orca -- either that or
>        it's downstream only.

Agree.

>      * GNOME Voice Control is not a GNOME module and is for all intents
>        and purposes dead. [1]

Yes, and it's a real pity, but the work was done, deployed in the
telecenter network and upstreamed anyway:
http://svn.berlios.de/viewcvs/festlang/trunk/gnome-voice-control/ChangeLog?revision=359&view=markup

>      * In theory the Evince improvements were done and upstreamed; in
>        practice I have never been able to get any accessibility out of
>        Evince. Ditto for Orca users from a variety of distros. As far
>        as we are concerned, Evince remains inaccessible. :(

Oh! Don't know about that. To be honest, i'm being really confused
here ... how should I refer at that point in the document?

> I'd also be sure that improvements provided were listed in the right
> place. For instance, does Dots (a braille translator) really now have an
> improvement of "Reading scanned text with Orca"??
>
> It might be worth distinguishing which companies and contributors did
> what. Amongst other things, I thought Fernando Herrera did the Dots
> work; not Warp. Likewise, I'd not combine company names with slashes
> without first checking with the companies being paired in this fashion.

Both them are real "bugs" on the document. Thanks for catching them.
As for the company names or contributors, I feel both could be
skipped. I don't feel this data interesting for deployers. What do you
think?

>> This study case shows how Andalusia regional gov. choosed Gnome
>> Desktop for setting up accessible workstations at their telecenter
>> network.
>
> Case studies, as I understand them, are more research-based. As such,
> I would expect anything with that title to not just promote work, but
> to also analyze the processes involved in bringing that work to fruition
> -- both the successes as well as the failures. Thus I would suggest that
> you find a different descriptor/title.

Well, it's a matter of what do you understand for a Case study.
I accept your suggestion. Do you find "GNOME Accessibility and
Andalusian Telecenters - A Success Story of the Guadalinfo Accesible
project"  as a better title?

> Take care.
> --joanie, Orca Project Lead

Best regards!

> [1] https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/festlang-gvc/2011-May/thread.html
>

-- 
J. Félix Ontañón Carmona
Manager
Emergya Consultoría