[jawsscripts] Re: JAWS improvement submission P thread, humbly requesting potential extension/resurrection Sina?
- From: "Sina Bahram" <sbahram@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jawsscripts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 00:15:34 -0400
Good question. A couple of things.
1. There will be 0 onList votes. I will, if necessary, flip the list to
moderated status if that starts up, and let emails through
one by one. Please don't take that much out of my nonexistent free time. anyone
and everyone, as always, is more than welcome to
email me as many times as you like. You can also skype me, tweet me, call me if
you want, Facebook/GooglePlus/LinkedIn me ...
whatever, but no onList votes, as that moves from taking up my time, to
cluttering the list, and I can't allow that. it's like,
*smile*, my only job.
2. My gut feeling is to not allow this. the reason is called the slippery slope
argument. Now, in the past I've made exceptions for
things affecting the blindness community, or a research study needing to reach
jaws power users, but I sort of did the same thing
here by letting quite a number of messages go through. That's enough to reach
who you're going to reach. Let's now let it go, but
again, please, contact me off list through any mechanism you desire.
Again, all replies to this message need to be off list, please.
Thanks so much, all.
Take care,
Sina
Website: www.SinaBahram.com
Twitter: @SinaBahram
-----Original Message-----
From: jawsscripts-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jawsscripts-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoff Chapman
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 11:00 PM
To: jawsscripts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jawsscripts] JAWS improvement submission P thread, humbly requesting
potential extension/resurrection Sina?
Hi Sina/list.
I totally realize the list has an administrator,
And that he's made a call on this.
And actually, for what it's worth, I too strongly believe a list like this,
really does function optimally when it has an administrator, to keep members
on track, and all where we actually want to be. And to keep us from
damaging one another etc.
However, in this case, Do people think it would be toooo out of line for me
to humbly request a reconsideration on this one Sina? Would perhaps a small
list vote on it help in your decision-making on reconsideration?
re permitting the resurrection/further open discussion
of what I personally consider to be the reeeally rather important JAWS/FS
development thread, That Jim's obviously put a lot of thought and effort
into commencing? (rather More than the original petition writer has in my
view.)
Rather than shutting it down quite so quickly?
I don't want to appear at all "sassy," as I think americanes call it, nor
that I'm not willing to accept the ref's decision on a play without
questioning, if this is indeed the community list rules.
But, I thought it at least worth the ask?
For I do of course, totally realize the need to insure that it doesn't just
turn into mindless fs bashing and whining and such. I totally get that.
but, I personally would've thought that, especially for this type of group,
who almost certainly are the most technically jaws-aware customers outside
of FS,
that this topic would've been close enough to all our hearts, to permit some
further open, mature, and revelatory discussion upon?
I certainly would very much appreciate hearing some of the most savvy people
in this industry, comment on their view of some of the things Jim's raised,
and WHAT I think we would all agree, is a significant problem that effects
all of us pretty closely?
I certainly had both some further thoughts and questions re some of Ji'ms
comments/ideas, that I'd personally rather liked to have had the opportunity
to put forward on this one myself, for comment?
What do you think Sina. Could it be permitted? Perhaps with any additional
protective caveats you thought necessary?
Or, if not, is there any way those who were interested, could participate in
some forum off this list about the topic a bit more?
Or do people think it's not worth it.
Thanks much.
Geoff C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Pinto" <davepinto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jawsscripts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 11:42 PM
Subject: [jawsscripts] Re: Petition
> Jim,
>
> Thanks for being both honest and bold, and leading the way once again. And
> because I concur with both your respect and criticism of FS, I signed the
> petition.
>
> My lot is that every year for the past dozen years I must spend at least a
> hundred hours or more scripting workarounds for JAWS bugs. My increasing
> disappointment is evidenced by the fact that lately, I've even given up
> reporting the bugs.
>
> David Pinto
> YesAccessible.com
> OurAMB.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Snowbarger" <Snowman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <jawsscripts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 10:55 PM
> Subject: [jawsscripts] Petition
>
>
>> In case you have not already seen this, a link to a grass roots petition
>> to FS to improve product quality:
>> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/freedom-scientific-bug-fix-problems
>>
>> Ok, I'm gonna wax eloquent for a bit.
>> I signed this petition, not because I don't have respect for the guys at
>> FS and what they have accomplished. Nor because I don't have sympathy
>> for
>> the enormous challenge they face, trying to keep up with all the changes
>> that continue to prolipherate. Quite to the contrary, I do respect their
>> accomplishment, and think they've got a tough job. , For 15 years, I
>> have, and continue to, benefit from their work. I remain committed to
>> JAWS, because it is still the most powerful tool I have available to do
>> my
>> work.
>> I say, if NVDA can do it, and JAWS presently can't,
>> just give me a few minutes, and it will.
>>
>> But, I signed because I generally concur with the basic sentiment
>> expressed in the petition that JAWS is a critical piece of software for
>> me
>> to conduct my life. It is not a game, or an incidental amusement, it's a
>> critical tool. And, as such, it deserves some serious quality control
>> attention.
>> To be fare, it's not just JAWS that has the bugs. Buggy software is the
>> norm these days, everywhere you look. Most of it has some imperfection
>> or
>> other, and much of it is downright experimental, shouldn't have even been
>> let out of the lab. Much of this is driven by the pressures of a foney
>> ephemeral market place that doesn't know what it wants until it sees it,
>> and then it likes it for a day and gets bored, Move on. Just throw that
>> away. Who cares, it probably had bugs in it anyway. The problem is so
>> pervasive in the industry at large that, people like me, who write
>> safety-related software are forced through unbelievable rigor to prove,
>> six ways to Sunday, that everything works, exactly as it was intended to
>> work, every single time. No room for mishaps. It doesn't crash, you
>> never need to reboot it. It doesn't sometimes do this, and sometimes do
>> that, it is dependable.
>> For every module, or logically related group of modules that is
>> developed,
>> a rigorous and exhaustive set of unit tests are defined and implemented,
>> to run that unit through all it's paces, even to the extreme of having to
>> define adequate test cases to cause every single line of code to be
>> executed. And, before the entire system is built, all modules are run
>> through their unit tests, and the results confirmed. Then, the entire
>> thing is assembled, and a whole batch of integration tests is run on the
>> assembled system. Those tests accumulate as the product evolves. And,
>> with every new release, old tests are run again to prove that stuff that
>> used to work, still does, exactly as it did when it was first introduced,
>> as modified in subsequent releases.
>>
>> They make us go through all that pain and suffering precisely because the
>> state of quality in the industry at large is so bad. Developers seem to
>> just kind of get it working, and then throw it out there for the consumer
>> to "enjoy". Notice the quotes.
>>
>> But JAWS isn't a foney, funny, throw away program like that. It's an
>> important tool.But, when you think about it, doing all the testing such
>> as
>> what I described for all of JAWS, on all the operating systems, and
>> service packs,with different application versions, video cards, , and I
>> don't know, processor manufacturers? Surely not. But, anyway, that
>> test
>> effort is HUGE. I'm sure they do testing. I'm just not sure what form
>> that takes.
>> Anyway, if we get them to be more rigorous, it is going to take them
>> longer to do stuff.
>> The rate of releases would slow down. That means the tick rate on your
>> SMA slows down too, and your SMA lasts longer.
>> And, FS's income would fall, even as it works harder.
>> Problem is, the monkeys have to be fed.
>> So, FS earns a fixed amount of income by ticking the SMA's and a fixed
>> rate.
>> If we compel them to release fewer features, but with higher quality on
>> the one's they do release, they can get their tick rate, we can get our
>> quality, and we can know that we paid a price for that quality, only if
>> we
>> believe that the number of features we used to get per major release
>> should be considered the norm, and so dropping back from that so-called
>> norm, is perceived as a cost. But, if the so-called norm was actually
>> artificial, in that the cost of persisting bugs, and the aggravation of
>> dealing with new features that don't work quite right, made that
>> artificial norm less than optimal, then the relationship between that,
>> and the situation we were pondering of fewer features but higher quality,
>> is irrelevant,because we are not supposed to get as many features as we
>> are now getting. If we were, it would be possible to provide them with
>> the quality level we expect. It apparently isn't, so we're not.
>> But, we were getting that many, which means stuff was not like stuff was
>> spoasta be.
>> But, that should be abnormal.
>> In other words, the higher quality, fewer features case should be the
>> true
>> norm. Can you look at simply moving from fantasizing an artificial norm,
>> to mentally adopting the true norm as a cost?
>>
>> What do you know, higher quality, zero cost.
>>
>> So anyway, I'm sure I'm just preaching to the quire to say that JAWS has,
>> for ages and ages, been plagued with a disturbing degree of variability,
>> as well as regression as new releases are poked out. Perhaps , it would
>> make more sense to release once certain quality objectives for the
>> required feature set have been achieved, rather than because it is
>> October
>> again.
>> I have always lived by the aphorism, keep your older versions handy, for
>> a
>> very good reason. And so, I do.
>>
>> Anyway, because this is such an important tool for us, It seems good to
>> collectively remind FS that, while we thank them for their work, we'd
>> like
>> them to do a little better job focusing on achieving, and maintaining
>> product quality.
>>
>> Ya think so?
>>
>>
>> __________�
>>
>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>> http://www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts
>>
>>
>
>
> __________�
>
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> http://www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts
>
>
__________�
View the list's information and change your settings at
http://www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts
__________�
View the list's information and change your settings at
http://www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts
Other related posts: