How good is theweb access in window eyes?
----- Original Message -----
From: Flor Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: An Editorial on Quality
> You probably hit a few nails on the head there, jim, and I also fsurmise
> that HJ fear that they have lost ground to WindowEyes in the last year or
so
> with respect to Web access, thus the fast-driven beta & release process we
> have been witnessing. I'm one of the fortunate, but there are users who
> haven't followed the betas and RC's in sequence who have downloaded 3.3135
> and appear to be having other problems not related particularly to
JFW3.3135
> because they didn't sequentially fill in.
> The policy of being charged for extra upgrades to non or expired -SMA
> holders, say from 3.0 to 3.3 in one move, should also be
uestioned. -----
> Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 10:48 PM
> Subject: An Editorial on Quality
>
>
> : The HJ standard definition:
> : You know you are ready for beta, when the code compiles and links.
> :
> : Ok, tongue in cheek. But, Seriously. Ron Milliman's remarks reflect a
> : lot of my own sentiments. The quality of JFW is not improving quickly
> : enough to help us even keep pace with this rapidly moving industry. I
> : empathize with HJ technical staff in that I know they have a formidable
> : challenge. I am a software developer as well. In my business, we
employ
> : automated testing programs to do what we call regression testing, that
> : is, to make sure that everything that used to work, still does. They
are
> : clearly not doing that. And, I think they need to do so. I usually get
> : a JFW "release" and think, Jesus, this thing is not even ready for
alpha.
> : Alpha testing comes before beta testing. Beta means you think it is
> : correct, and just want to have some users do some last minute
> : verification to make sure. But, We commonly see bugs in "final
releases"
> : that should never have made it through testing.
> :
> : We know there is a quality problem in the PC industry generally. I am
> : sure I don't have to convince you of that. But, JFW, being a
fundamental
> : part of every single thing you and I do on the computer, is more
> : important than any individual application. It is the basic building
> : block upon which all the rest of our computer experience is based, and
> : upon which it depends. It is essential that it work as correctly as
> : possible. If an application misbehaves, a sighted person can usually
> : look at the screen and figure out what happened and deal with it. If
JFW
> : misbehaves, we often can't even tell what is going on. In other words,
> : the quality standards required of a screen reader exceed those of
> : applications in general.
> :
> : It is a damn good thing for HJ that the rest of the screen readers don't
> : have script languages behind them. I'm afraid HJ has got me there.
Once
> : you master that script language, you can do so many fantastic, powerful
> : things to make your application work like a breeze. You could never do
> : that with the other screen readers. So, I'm afraid I'm stuck with HJ
for
> : the long haul. It is, in fact, a fine screen reader, an excellent
> : architecture. And, thinking of that fine architecture complete with
> : excellent, dependable behavioral quality makes me salivate. (boy, am I
a
> : cheap date or what?)
> :
> : Come on, HJ. Let's solve the quality thing and kick the competition
> : clean off the board.
> :
> : Editorial by:
> : Jim Snowbarger
> : -
> : Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
> :
> :
>
> -
> Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
-
Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
