Re: bug list you want fixed
- From: Bill <bill.cam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:23:54 -0500
gene i have to truely wonder what your connection is to freedom scientific.
based on your last message, you state that f s has some truely interesting
developments in the pipe line that require a lot of programming time.
First why would they tell you when in the past keeping developments is
usually a secretive process.
to guard against the competition.
if they did tell you this my next question is why?
whats your inside connnection.
secondly they had other developments in my view that did very little good
to end users of jfw.
development one was that mini screen reader they developed.
when it was released the version of jfw that was released around the same
time had almost no bug fixes and very few new features.
then version 5 was released.
at the same time 5 was released they did a upgrade to majic and also
rewrote jfw code so it would be more compatible with majic.
5 also lack few new features for jfw users that are not also using majic in
conjunction.
in addition 5 broke stuff that used to work.
many of the bug fixes that many refer to are old features that got broke
and never put back to work write.
my point being that just because they have some thing up the streem that
requires more development it does not mean its good for end users using jfw
as a stand alone product.
in addition they may release a killer new feature, like jfw 6 did with
remote desk top but make it an extra add on price wise.
what good does that do folks if it cost an extra 400 to get it and they can
not afford it.
suspect this took much of the development time for version 6.
plus i no of no other application i own where a single feature , remote
desk top, requires the end user to pay 6 times as much to buy as the
upgrade cost.
that being the case 6 comes down to a progress bar thats not very well
implemented and a skim reading feature.
6.1 has added support for the dec talk u s b.
thats a positive.
in know way am i suggesting they stop working on scripts for applications.
this is a seperate issue but before doing so they should fix any scripts
that worked in the past and make sure they work today.
another point, prior to 4.51 release, one could use any version of jfw
between 3 and 4.51 on their system.
since the release of xp and the unified driver one can not go back to
versions prior to 4.51 to get the functionality they may of had in a prior
version.
so for that reason f s needs to do a even better job of going back and
correcting bugs in scripts that no longer work properly.
in the past we just used an earlier version of jfw to get the desired
feature, but today that no longer is an option.
i suspect this is partially why this stuff has people more upset than in
the past.
by the way i am not against the move to have jfw work with other programs
like majic.
i see those that use both as blind brothers.
so the quirks left behind by 5 breaking stuff did not upset me so much.
but when 6 and 6.1 failled to fix some of these issues then it was a
differant story.
not to mention it introduced a few new bugs.
this is my last message on this subject because its obvious to me we will
never see eye to eye on this.
you say they do not owe us any thing, me on the other hand thinks the end
user should be getting something for the money they spend on jfw.
i also think that money should be spent on improving jfw and not on another
product.
let other products generate their own income streems for improvements.
in addition i think the find should rate as a pretty hi priority.
i will how ever continue to work on the bug list.
saving all the messages and compiling them into a single message.
then submit it.
bill
At 07:52 PM 4/13/2005, you wrote:
>There is a great difference between product feedback and giving us a voice
>in the company. I was reacting to the tone of this entire thread... that FS
>somehow owes us something. They don't As I stated before, I was a programmer
>for years and some times you have to prioritize things. Right now FS has a
>few new things on the horizon that require a lot of development time. As I
>see it they are fixing glaring crash the system bugs as fast as possible.
>The other smaller pain in the ass bugs will be gotten to. And yes I agree
>that their debugging could be better, but I don't see it as the insult that
>many on this list seem to think it is. It is simply a business decision to
>lower some of the bug fixes on the priority list... all be it a questionable
>decision.
>
>Gene
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill" <bill.cam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 6:16 PM
>Subject: Re: bug list you want fixed
>
>
> > interesting view you have gene on companies, glab when i called whirlpool
> > they had a totally differant view than yours, they actually wanted to no
> > what was accessable and what was not.
> >
> > they even provide braille layouts.
> >
> > plus any feedback nnot associated with blindness that could improve their
> > product was also well received.
> >
> > as far as companies abandoning public beta test, not sure where you got
> > your info on that.
> > please elaborate on your source.
> > been using windows for some time now and its always in public beta.
> > especially internet explorer.
> > lol.
> > m s was smart enough to include the error reporting tool for the reasons
> > youmention earlier.
> >
> > even if no error reporting tool their is a simple way to determine the
> > other info.
> >
> > has any body here ever reported a bug and got a e mail back from f s
> > asking
> > for more feedback.
> > thats all it would take to get extra info.
> > secondly if one person reports a bug on a list of thousands it goes to
> > the
> > bottom, but when several report the same bug like the find not working
> > then
> > they need to start looking at the issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > bill
> > p s i have also done business with a company that also turned its head to
> > its clients, think it was telesensory.
> > we all know what happen their.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
> > jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
> > Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
> >
> > If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or
> > the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather
> > contact the list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
>
>--
>To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
>jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
>Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
>
>If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or
>the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather
>contact the list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
