All I can say here is: Amen to all of you. This is gettin' old. I also signed. Alex On 10/6/12, David Pinto <davepinto@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? >> >> >> __________ï >> >> View the list's information and change your settings at >> http://www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts >> >> > > > __________ï > > View the list's information and change your settings at > http://www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts > > __________ï View the list's information and change your settings at http://www.freelists.org/list/jawsscripts