Re: [orca-list] Alternatives to Mozilla based software



Hello,
Regarding what goes in what update, yes I understand the need for change control, it was part of my course I was doing about 6 months ago. I suppose it just depends what sort of agility a project wants to have. As an example, it seems to be that orca developers are more responsive about getting fixes in stable branches. May be that is an unfair comparison as I probably fit better with the "normal" user for orca than for firefox (IE. accessibility in firefox is more specialist).

On the issue of Mozilla saying only report bugs for builds less than two weeks old, may be I have taken it too strictly, but that was how it read to me and so they may do better to strongly encourage people to try with latest versions and also specify what date the bug was introduced rather than just saying "only report bugs for".

It also appears to me that bugs get reported to orca but passed on to Mozilla. Sometimes end users don't know whether its orca or mozilla at fault, therefore orca may be the place a user will report it. May be work needs to go into passing such bugs on (also for other software as well).

I do use development versions of some software, firefox and thunderbird just aren't ones I want to do that with for main usage (I rely on them too much for being productive).

Michael Whapples

On -10/01/37 20:59, Trevor Saunders wrote:
Hi,

A bit more detail: In thunderbird 3.1.x the XUL version used gives
additional window activated events, which makes orca loose focus if
reading messages in a new window (I never got into tabs for email).
When I filed a bug report about it, it was seen that it would not be
possible to get a fix included in thunderbird 3.1.x. Upgrading to
thunderbird 3.3a1 and above has resolved that bug but introduced
bugs such as the issue with wrong character being echoed when
backspacing and orca being unaware or what text is being inserted
into edit fields (eg. the input area for writing a message), so as I
type orca does no echo of typed words (I have that echo setting on
in orca) and Braille is not updated. Despite having filed a bug
relating to the backspace issue and a fix being created for firefox,
I am unsure whether that patch has been made to thunderbird and/or
which version of thunderbird it will appear in.
So thunderbird is built from a  build system that uses serveral repos
including mozilla central so presumably it will happen eventually, but
to be honest I have no idea what the thunderbird developement plans are
related to what version of gecko different thunderbird versions will
use, so I doubt I or anyone else who works on core gecko accessibility
has an immediate idea, you'd have to ask a thunderbird person.

I think that is probably more what is my dissatisfaction, the
ability of Mozilla to respond to bugs relating to accessibility. It
seems like for those of us who follow stable versions (may be trying
beta versions and at times alpha builds) bugs are reported too late
for Mozilla to get anything done for that stable branch of the
I understand your problem, and I think it applies to all software to
some extent.  The trick is that making fixes to stable releases mean
making changes which means risk of breaking things which would be ...
unstable.  So you have to limit what you change in stable branches to be
minor fixes that clearly can't break anything or fixes to major problems
like security issues or crashes, which accessibility fixes very often
aren't.  I've thought about this issue before, but never come up with
any solution.

product. Also the Mozilla requirement that when filing a bug you
should only do it against a build less than two weeks old is very
  I think your entirpreting this a bit too strictly plenty of people file
  bugs against branches and everyone is fine with that, just set the
  version in the report to be 4.x or whatever, and don't be terribly
  suprised if the bug can only be fixed in trunk or alredy works in
  trunk.

restrictive. I am sorry, if the stable builds have sufficient bugs
to make me feel this way, why would I want to use something as my
main browser or email client which Mozilla accept may not be
anywhere near the quality of stable builds? As an example, in
checking the firefox issue I mentioned yesterday, I tried a version
of aurora but that has messed up a firefox settings file which now
prevents firefox 4 loading, so cutting off my fallback option.
I'm not sure what to say here other than as I said applying fixes runs
the risk of brekaing stuff...  Other than that I'm using nightly builds
and they genrally seem to treat me fairly well, and I haven't see any
issues starting the iceweasel 3.6 that debian ships.  But I'm willing to
believe that there are bugs in unstable builds that write out bad
settings or something.

Working the other way (IE. if I notice a bug in a release and then
try a nightly build), this still leaves us in a position of catch up
yes, I think its pretty obvious that some people need to be testing
nightly builds etc or issues can't be found before a branch is stable
which is almost definitionally too late.  I think there are a few people
in the accessibility community testing nightly builds and the like, but
not nearly enough.  For example the bug you reported was introduced last
june and was noticed in a few orca bugs in augest / sept iirc but then
nobody did much of anything with those reports so nobody realized there
was an issue until early this year.

and we hit the issue I mentioned that normally once a release is
made Mozilla don't seem to add accessibility fixes until the next
major update.

That is probably enough of me going on, but I hope may be it gives
you an idea why I am so sick of Mozilla stuff and want some
alternatives. I will say, I do think its a shame as certain ways in
which thunderbird works I do like, its just the state of the
accessibility which has got me this way.
well, fwiw I'm pretty happy with mutt.

Trev





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