[jawsscripts] Re: Petition
- From: "John Esak" <john@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jawsscripts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 11:15:22 -0400
How do I sign, and where?
John Esak
-----Original Message-----
From: jawsscripts-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jawsscripts-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex H.
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 10:28 AM
To: jawsscripts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jawsscripts] Re: Petition
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?
>>
>>
>> __________
>>
>> 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: