Re: progress of Gnopernicus ver 2

[Mikko Liukko <traktori dnainternet net>]

Moi taasen

Alla viesti joka kertoo millainen ongelma on juuri meneillään. 
Toivottavasti asia korjaantuu viimeistään maaliskuun alussa. Voin 
kokeilla iltapäivallä onnistuuko minlta uusimman version asennus.

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