Re: progress of Gnopernicus

[Janina Sajka <janina rednote net>]

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