Topics

Extended Winamp and others with no recent author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this week, community maintenance

Noelia Ruiz
 



Enviado desde mi iPhone

El 30 nov 2019, a las 21:52, derek riemer <driemer.riemer@...> escribió:


The code to set your own timeout has been around for a good many versions now.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:51 PM Derek Riemer <driemer.riemer@...> wrote:
I just removed consoleTimer.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:22 PM Noelia Ruiz <nrm1977@...> wrote:
Hi, ask me if I don't explain things clearly. My English is not quite
good to explain things as precissely as I like.
1. For me, the legacy section is good to encourage to keep NVDA
updated since the word legacy implies that add-ons contained there are
deprecated.
2. I would use "not compatible or not needed (or not usable or useful,
not sure about the best word) in the latest stable release of NVDA",
since recents version is ambiguous.
3. Sometimes we can't ensure what is the latest version supported for
an add-on, just can ensure that NVDA 2019.3 won't be supported. I
think that teamViewer add-on is supported in NVDA 2019.2.1, but really
I am not sure. And what about Quick Books 2014, created by Mick? This
is just an example, since there are superold add-ons, and not always
have to be maintained by other person.
BTW, should we move consoleTimer?
Cheers

2019-11-30 21:06 GMT+01:00, derek riemer <driemer.riemer@...>:
> Hi:
> It seems that the wording should be written to say that addons listed here
> are not compatible with the most recent version of NVDA, and were
> deprecated at some previous time.
>
> The following add-ons are no longer actively developed or compatible with
> recent NVDA releases. Addons listed here should have the last version of
> NVDA they actively support listed. Use on later versions of NVDA may break
> things. If you wish to maintain these add-ons, including making them
> compatible with recent NVDA releases, you can request to become the
> maintainer by writing to the add-ons development mailing list. The source
> code repositories of these add-ons can be listed here, patches welcome.
> More information about this procedure can be found by going to the
> processes section.
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:37 AM Noelia Ruiz <nrm1977@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi, maybe I haven't explained clearly what I mean. I think that, in
>> the legacy section, we should clarify that add-ons found there are not
>> compatible, or ar not needed, for the current stable release of NVDA
>> or above. I used the word latest instead of current. My purpose is to
>> clarify the purpose of the legacy section without mentioning a version
>> number, since when NVDA 2020.2, for example, is released, the same
>> explanation is stil valid, even when add-ons need to be updated due to
>> big changes in NVDA.
>> What I mean is that using the word recent or 2019.3 and above, related
>> to NVDA versions, is more ambiguous than saying "the current stable
>> release".
>> Also, don't worry if you disagree with me. I love discussions with
>> interesting people if I have time :)
>> Cheers
>>
>> 2019-11-28 8:14 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
>> > Noelia,
>> >
>> > I'm sorry, but regretfully I have to disagree with you again.
>> >
>> > I believe the whole point of keeping legacy add-ons at all, is that
>> either
>> > some
>> > people can't update beyond certain versions of NVDA, and therefore need
>> > older
>> > add-ons; or some people require certain add-ons that will only work
>> > with
>> > older
>> > versions of NVDA.
>> >
>> > Encouraging them to update by making the wording less clear (changing
>> > the
>> > actual
>> > important version number to "previous stable release"), is opposite of
>> the
>> > whole
>> > purpose for retaining these add-ons in legacy. That is what the stable
>> > section
>> > is for.
>> >
>> > Unless I misunderstand what you mean.
>> >
>> > Luke
>> >
>> >   On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Noelia Ruiz wrote:
>> >
>> >> Another thing to do maybe to include a reference to providers in the
>> >> stable webpage, since drivers are mentioned.
>> >> My opinion about moving and mentioning "the last stable release" of
>> >> NVDA is to encourage people to update NVDA when a new release is
>> >> available, for stability, security, and even for a better
>> >> collaboration in the future development (for catching bugs or other
>> >> contributions), and ever possible donations to NV Access, which I
>> >> suppose that many people can make when a new release is available.
>> >> Cheers
>> >>
>> >> 2019-11-28 5:37 GMT+01:00, Noelia Ruiz via Groups.Io
>> >> <nrm1977=gmail.com@groups.io>:
>> >>> I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
>> >>> above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
>> >>> reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>>
>> >>> 2019-11-28 0:39 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
>> >>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>> Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases)
>> >>>>> may
>> >>>>> introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll
>> change
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> would
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will
>> >>>> very
>> >>>> probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> for
>> >>>> this
>> >>>> whole thing.
>> >>>> I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern
>> in
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> clear
>> >>>> way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Luke
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Luke Davis
>> > Moderator: the new NVDA Help mailing list!
>> > (https://groups.io/g/NVDAHelp
>> )
>> > Author: Debug Helper NVDA add-on
>> > (https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/debugHelper.en.html)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Derek Riemer
> Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁
> ⠐⠞⠖
> •    Accessibility enthusiast.
> •    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
> •    Open source enthusiast.
> •    Skier.
>
> •    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com
>
>
>
>





--
Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com






--
Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com




derek riemer
 

The code to set your own timeout has been around for a good many versions now.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:51 PM Derek Riemer <driemer.riemer@...> wrote:
I just removed consoleTimer.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:22 PM Noelia Ruiz <nrm1977@...> wrote:
Hi, ask me if I don't explain things clearly. My English is not quite
good to explain things as precissely as I like.
1. For me, the legacy section is good to encourage to keep NVDA
updated since the word legacy implies that add-ons contained there are
deprecated.
2. I would use "not compatible or not needed (or not usable or useful,
not sure about the best word) in the latest stable release of NVDA",
since recents version is ambiguous.
3. Sometimes we can't ensure what is the latest version supported for
an add-on, just can ensure that NVDA 2019.3 won't be supported. I
think that teamViewer add-on is supported in NVDA 2019.2.1, but really
I am not sure. And what about Quick Books 2014, created by Mick? This
is just an example, since there are superold add-ons, and not always
have to be maintained by other person.
BTW, should we move consoleTimer?
Cheers

2019-11-30 21:06 GMT+01:00, derek riemer <driemer.riemer@...>:
> Hi:
> It seems that the wording should be written to say that addons listed here
> are not compatible with the most recent version of NVDA, and were
> deprecated at some previous time.
>
> The following add-ons are no longer actively developed or compatible with
> recent NVDA releases. Addons listed here should have the last version of
> NVDA they actively support listed. Use on later versions of NVDA may break
> things. If you wish to maintain these add-ons, including making them
> compatible with recent NVDA releases, you can request to become the
> maintainer by writing to the add-ons development mailing list. The source
> code repositories of these add-ons can be listed here, patches welcome.
> More information about this procedure can be found by going to the
> processes section.
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:37 AM Noelia Ruiz <nrm1977@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi, maybe I haven't explained clearly what I mean. I think that, in
>> the legacy section, we should clarify that add-ons found there are not
>> compatible, or ar not needed, for the current stable release of NVDA
>> or above. I used the word latest instead of current. My purpose is to
>> clarify the purpose of the legacy section without mentioning a version
>> number, since when NVDA 2020.2, for example, is released, the same
>> explanation is stil valid, even when add-ons need to be updated due to
>> big changes in NVDA.
>> What I mean is that using the word recent or 2019.3 and above, related
>> to NVDA versions, is more ambiguous than saying "the current stable
>> release".
>> Also, don't worry if you disagree with me. I love discussions with
>> interesting people if I have time :)
>> Cheers
>>
>> 2019-11-28 8:14 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
>> > Noelia,
>> >
>> > I'm sorry, but regretfully I have to disagree with you again.
>> >
>> > I believe the whole point of keeping legacy add-ons at all, is that
>> either
>> > some
>> > people can't update beyond certain versions of NVDA, and therefore need
>> > older
>> > add-ons; or some people require certain add-ons that will only work
>> > with
>> > older
>> > versions of NVDA.
>> >
>> > Encouraging them to update by making the wording less clear (changing
>> > the
>> > actual
>> > important version number to "previous stable release"), is opposite of
>> the
>> > whole
>> > purpose for retaining these add-ons in legacy. That is what the stable
>> > section
>> > is for.
>> >
>> > Unless I misunderstand what you mean.
>> >
>> > Luke
>> >
>> >   On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Noelia Ruiz wrote:
>> >
>> >> Another thing to do maybe to include a reference to providers in the
>> >> stable webpage, since drivers are mentioned.
>> >> My opinion about moving and mentioning "the last stable release" of
>> >> NVDA is to encourage people to update NVDA when a new release is
>> >> available, for stability, security, and even for a better
>> >> collaboration in the future development (for catching bugs or other
>> >> contributions), and ever possible donations to NV Access, which I
>> >> suppose that many people can make when a new release is available.
>> >> Cheers
>> >>
>> >> 2019-11-28 5:37 GMT+01:00, Noelia Ruiz via Groups.Io
>> >> <nrm1977=gmail.com@groups.io>:
>> >>> I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
>> >>> above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
>> >>> reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>>
>> >>> 2019-11-28 0:39 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
>> >>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>> Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases)
>> >>>>> may
>> >>>>> introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll
>> change
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> would
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will
>> >>>> very
>> >>>> probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> for
>> >>>> this
>> >>>> whole thing.
>> >>>> I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern
>> in
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> clear
>> >>>> way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Luke
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Luke Davis
>> > Moderator: the new NVDA Help mailing list!
>> > (https://groups.io/g/NVDAHelp
>> )
>> > Author: Debug Helper NVDA add-on
>> > (https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/debugHelper.en.html)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Derek Riemer
> Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁
> ⠐⠞⠖
> •    Accessibility enthusiast.
> •    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
> •    Open source enthusiast.
> •    Skier.
>
> •    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com
>
>
>
>





--
Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com






--
Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com




derek riemer
 

I just removed consoleTimer.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:22 PM Noelia Ruiz <nrm1977@...> wrote:
Hi, ask me if I don't explain things clearly. My English is not quite
good to explain things as precissely as I like.
1. For me, the legacy section is good to encourage to keep NVDA
updated since the word legacy implies that add-ons contained there are
deprecated.
2. I would use "not compatible or not needed (or not usable or useful,
not sure about the best word) in the latest stable release of NVDA",
since recents version is ambiguous.
3. Sometimes we can't ensure what is the latest version supported for
an add-on, just can ensure that NVDA 2019.3 won't be supported. I
think that teamViewer add-on is supported in NVDA 2019.2.1, but really
I am not sure. And what about Quick Books 2014, created by Mick? This
is just an example, since there are superold add-ons, and not always
have to be maintained by other person.
BTW, should we move consoleTimer?
Cheers

2019-11-30 21:06 GMT+01:00, derek riemer <driemer.riemer@...>:
> Hi:
> It seems that the wording should be written to say that addons listed here
> are not compatible with the most recent version of NVDA, and were
> deprecated at some previous time.
>
> The following add-ons are no longer actively developed or compatible with
> recent NVDA releases. Addons listed here should have the last version of
> NVDA they actively support listed. Use on later versions of NVDA may break
> things. If you wish to maintain these add-ons, including making them
> compatible with recent NVDA releases, you can request to become the
> maintainer by writing to the add-ons development mailing list. The source
> code repositories of these add-ons can be listed here, patches welcome.
> More information about this procedure can be found by going to the
> processes section.
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:37 AM Noelia Ruiz <nrm1977@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi, maybe I haven't explained clearly what I mean. I think that, in
>> the legacy section, we should clarify that add-ons found there are not
>> compatible, or ar not needed, for the current stable release of NVDA
>> or above. I used the word latest instead of current. My purpose is to
>> clarify the purpose of the legacy section without mentioning a version
>> number, since when NVDA 2020.2, for example, is released, the same
>> explanation is stil valid, even when add-ons need to be updated due to
>> big changes in NVDA.
>> What I mean is that using the word recent or 2019.3 and above, related
>> to NVDA versions, is more ambiguous than saying "the current stable
>> release".
>> Also, don't worry if you disagree with me. I love discussions with
>> interesting people if I have time :)
>> Cheers
>>
>> 2019-11-28 8:14 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
>> > Noelia,
>> >
>> > I'm sorry, but regretfully I have to disagree with you again.
>> >
>> > I believe the whole point of keeping legacy add-ons at all, is that
>> either
>> > some
>> > people can't update beyond certain versions of NVDA, and therefore need
>> > older
>> > add-ons; or some people require certain add-ons that will only work
>> > with
>> > older
>> > versions of NVDA.
>> >
>> > Encouraging them to update by making the wording less clear (changing
>> > the
>> > actual
>> > important version number to "previous stable release"), is opposite of
>> the
>> > whole
>> > purpose for retaining these add-ons in legacy. That is what the stable
>> > section
>> > is for.
>> >
>> > Unless I misunderstand what you mean.
>> >
>> > Luke
>> >
>> >   On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Noelia Ruiz wrote:
>> >
>> >> Another thing to do maybe to include a reference to providers in the
>> >> stable webpage, since drivers are mentioned.
>> >> My opinion about moving and mentioning "the last stable release" of
>> >> NVDA is to encourage people to update NVDA when a new release is
>> >> available, for stability, security, and even for a better
>> >> collaboration in the future development (for catching bugs or other
>> >> contributions), and ever possible donations to NV Access, which I
>> >> suppose that many people can make when a new release is available.
>> >> Cheers
>> >>
>> >> 2019-11-28 5:37 GMT+01:00, Noelia Ruiz via Groups.Io
>> >> <nrm1977=gmail.com@groups.io>:
>> >>> I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
>> >>> above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
>> >>> reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>>
>> >>> 2019-11-28 0:39 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
>> >>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>> Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases)
>> >>>>> may
>> >>>>> introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll
>> change
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> would
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will
>> >>>> very
>> >>>> probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> for
>> >>>> this
>> >>>> whole thing.
>> >>>> I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern
>> in
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> clear
>> >>>> way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Luke
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Luke Davis
>> > Moderator: the new NVDA Help mailing list!
>> > (https://groups.io/g/NVDAHelp
>> )
>> > Author: Debug Helper NVDA add-on
>> > (https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/debugHelper.en.html)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Derek Riemer
> Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁
> ⠐⠞⠖
> •    Accessibility enthusiast.
> •    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
> •    Open source enthusiast.
> •    Skier.
>
> •    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com
>
>
>
>





--
Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com




Noelia Ruiz
 

Hi, ask me if I don't explain things clearly. My English is not quite
good to explain things as precissely as I like.
1. For me, the legacy section is good to encourage to keep NVDA
updated since the word legacy implies that add-ons contained there are
deprecated.
2. I would use "not compatible or not needed (or not usable or useful,
not sure about the best word) in the latest stable release of NVDA",
since recents version is ambiguous.
3. Sometimes we can't ensure what is the latest version supported for
an add-on, just can ensure that NVDA 2019.3 won't be supported. I
think that teamViewer add-on is supported in NVDA 2019.2.1, but really
I am not sure. And what about Quick Books 2014, created by Mick? This
is just an example, since there are superold add-ons, and not always
have to be maintained by other person.
BTW, should we move consoleTimer?
Cheers

2019-11-30 21:06 GMT+01:00, derek riemer <driemer.riemer@...>:

Hi:
It seems that the wording should be written to say that addons listed here
are not compatible with the most recent version of NVDA, and were
deprecated at some previous time.

The following add-ons are no longer actively developed or compatible with
recent NVDA releases. Addons listed here should have the last version of
NVDA they actively support listed. Use on later versions of NVDA may break
things. If you wish to maintain these add-ons, including making them
compatible with recent NVDA releases, you can request to become the
maintainer by writing to the add-ons development mailing list. The source
code repositories of these add-ons can be listed here, patches welcome.
More information about this procedure can be found by going to the
processes section.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:37 AM Noelia Ruiz <nrm1977@...> wrote:

Hi, maybe I haven't explained clearly what I mean. I think that, in
the legacy section, we should clarify that add-ons found there are not
compatible, or ar not needed, for the current stable release of NVDA
or above. I used the word latest instead of current. My purpose is to
clarify the purpose of the legacy section without mentioning a version
number, since when NVDA 2020.2, for example, is released, the same
explanation is stil valid, even when add-ons need to be updated due to
big changes in NVDA.
What I mean is that using the word recent or 2019.3 and above, related
to NVDA versions, is more ambiguous than saying "the current stable
release".
Also, don't worry if you disagree with me. I love discussions with
interesting people if I have time :)
Cheers

2019-11-28 8:14 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
Noelia,

I'm sorry, but regretfully I have to disagree with you again.

I believe the whole point of keeping legacy add-ons at all, is that
either
some
people can't update beyond certain versions of NVDA, and therefore need
older
add-ons; or some people require certain add-ons that will only work
with
older
versions of NVDA.

Encouraging them to update by making the wording less clear (changing
the
actual
important version number to "previous stable release"), is opposite of
the
whole
purpose for retaining these add-ons in legacy. That is what the stable
section
is for.

Unless I misunderstand what you mean.

Luke

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Noelia Ruiz wrote:

Another thing to do maybe to include a reference to providers in the
stable webpage, since drivers are mentioned.
My opinion about moving and mentioning "the last stable release" of
NVDA is to encourage people to update NVDA when a new release is
available, for stability, security, and even for a better
collaboration in the future development (for catching bugs or other
contributions), and ever possible donations to NV Access, which I
suppose that many people can make when a new release is available.
Cheers

2019-11-28 5:37 GMT+01:00, Noelia Ruiz via Groups.Io
<nrm1977=gmail.com@groups.io>:
I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
Cheers

2019-11-28 0:39 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:

I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact
that
Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases)
may
introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll
change
the
wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to
that
would
be
at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will
very
probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to
be
for
this
whole thing.
I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern
in
a
clear
way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.

Luke







--
Luke Davis
Moderator: the new NVDA Help mailing list!
(https://groups.io/g/NVDAHelp
)
Author: Debug Helper NVDA add-on
(https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/debugHelper.en.html)





--
Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time! ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁
⠐⠞⠖
• Accessibility enthusiast.
• Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
• Open source enthusiast.
• Skier.

• Personal website: https://derekriemer.com



 

Hi,

I think Derek is right – it adds more confusion especially for add-ons with no compatibility information and no active development. Due to this, it gives the community urgency to remove them as soon as possible (that is, today).

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io> On Behalf Of derek riemer
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 12:15 PM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io Group Moderators <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this week, community maintenance

 

We're just pushing the problem to a later date. What's the big deal with mentioning that it was some previous version of NVDA and we know it doesn't work with the last version of NVDA? Then we can update the mdwn file if we know. It seems we should just nuke these addons that are so old we don't know when they last worked, to not confuse our users.

 

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:12 PM Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> wrote:

Hi,

This will mean authors and the community must specify the last version an add-on is compatible with, except that some are so outdated that we don’t know which one to use as last compatible version.

For now I’ll use Luke’s suggestion (mention 2019.3 directly) earlier than scheduled in order to avoid confusion (at least it’ll say, “upcoming 2019.3” to make it clear that 2019.3 is under development), along with leaving room for adding Derek’s suggestion.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io> On Behalf Of derek riemer
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 12:06 PM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io Group Moderators <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this week, community maintenance

 

Hi:

It seems that the wording should be written to say that addons listed here are not compatible with the most recent version of NVDA, and were deprecated at some previous time.

 

The following add-ons are no longer actively developed or compatible with recent NVDA releases. Addons listed here should have the last version of NVDA they actively support listed. Use on later versions of NVDA may break things. If you wish to maintain these add-ons, including making them compatible with recent NVDA releases, you can request to become the maintainer by writing to the add-ons development mailing list. The source code repositories of these add-ons can be listed here, patches welcome. More information about this procedure can be found by going to the processes section.

 

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:37 AM Noelia Ruiz <nrm1977@...> wrote:

Hi, maybe I haven't explained clearly what I mean. I think that, in
the legacy section, we should clarify that add-ons found there are not
compatible, or ar not needed, for the current stable release of NVDA
or above. I used the word latest instead of current. My purpose is to
clarify the purpose of the legacy section without mentioning a version
number, since when NVDA 2020.2, for example, is released, the same
explanation is stil valid, even when add-ons need to be updated due to
big changes in NVDA.
What I mean is that using the word recent or 2019.3 and above, related
to NVDA versions, is more ambiguous than saying "the current stable
release".
Also, don't worry if you disagree with me. I love discussions with
interesting people if I have time :)
Cheers

2019-11-28 8:14 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
> Noelia,
>
> I'm sorry, but regretfully I have to disagree with you again.
>
> I believe the whole point of keeping legacy add-ons at all, is that either
> some
> people can't update beyond certain versions of NVDA, and therefore need
> older
> add-ons; or some people require certain add-ons that will only work with
> older
> versions of NVDA.
>
> Encouraging them to update by making the wording less clear (changing the
> actual
> important version number to "previous stable release"), is opposite of the
> whole
> purpose for retaining these add-ons in legacy. That is what the stable
> section
> is for.
>
> Unless I misunderstand what you mean.
>
> Luke
>
>   On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Noelia Ruiz wrote:
>
>> Another thing to do maybe to include a reference to providers in the
>> stable webpage, since drivers are mentioned.
>> My opinion about moving and mentioning "the last stable release" of
>> NVDA is to encourage people to update NVDA when a new release is
>> available, for stability, security, and even for a better
>> collaboration in the future development (for catching bugs or other
>> contributions), and ever possible donations to NV Access, which I
>> suppose that many people can make when a new release is available.
>> Cheers
>>
>> 2019-11-28 5:37 GMT+01:00, Noelia Ruiz via Groups.Io
>> <nrm1977=gmail.com@groups.io>:
>>> I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
>>> above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
>>> reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> 2019-11-28 0:39 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact
>>>>> that
>>>>> Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases) may
>>>>> introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll change
>>>>> the
>>>>> wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
>>>>
>>>> That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to that
>>>> would
>>>> be
>>>> at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will
>>>> very
>>>> probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to be
>>>> for
>>>> this
>>>> whole thing.
>>>> I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern in
>>>> a
>>>> clear
>>>> way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.
>>>>
>>>> Luke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Luke Davis
> Moderator: the new NVDA Help mailing list! (https://groups.io/g/NVDAHelp)
> Author: Debug Helper NVDA add-on
> (https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/debugHelper.en.html)
>
>
>
>



--

Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com




--

Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com



derek riemer
 

We're just pushing the problem to a later date. What's the big deal with mentioning that it was some previous version of NVDA and we know it doesn't work with the last version of NVDA? Then we can update the mdwn file if we know. It seems we should just nuke these addons that are so old we don't know when they last worked, to not confuse our users.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:12 PM Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> wrote:

Hi,

This will mean authors and the community must specify the last version an add-on is compatible with, except that some are so outdated that we don’t know which one to use as last compatible version.

For now I’ll use Luke’s suggestion (mention 2019.3 directly) earlier than scheduled in order to avoid confusion (at least it’ll say, “upcoming 2019.3” to make it clear that 2019.3 is under development), along with leaving room for adding Derek’s suggestion.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io> On Behalf Of derek riemer
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 12:06 PM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io Group Moderators <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this week, community maintenance

 

Hi:

It seems that the wording should be written to say that addons listed here are not compatible with the most recent version of NVDA, and were deprecated at some previous time.

 

The following add-ons are no longer actively developed or compatible with recent NVDA releases. Addons listed here should have the last version of NVDA they actively support listed. Use on later versions of NVDA may break things. If you wish to maintain these add-ons, including making them compatible with recent NVDA releases, you can request to become the maintainer by writing to the add-ons development mailing list. The source code repositories of these add-ons can be listed here, patches welcome. More information about this procedure can be found by going to the processes section.

 

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:37 AM Noelia Ruiz <nrm1977@...> wrote:

Hi, maybe I haven't explained clearly what I mean. I think that, in
the legacy section, we should clarify that add-ons found there are not
compatible, or ar not needed, for the current stable release of NVDA
or above. I used the word latest instead of current. My purpose is to
clarify the purpose of the legacy section without mentioning a version
number, since when NVDA 2020.2, for example, is released, the same
explanation is stil valid, even when add-ons need to be updated due to
big changes in NVDA.
What I mean is that using the word recent or 2019.3 and above, related
to NVDA versions, is more ambiguous than saying "the current stable
release".
Also, don't worry if you disagree with me. I love discussions with
interesting people if I have time :)
Cheers

2019-11-28 8:14 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
> Noelia,
>
> I'm sorry, but regretfully I have to disagree with you again.
>
> I believe the whole point of keeping legacy add-ons at all, is that either
> some
> people can't update beyond certain versions of NVDA, and therefore need
> older
> add-ons; or some people require certain add-ons that will only work with
> older
> versions of NVDA.
>
> Encouraging them to update by making the wording less clear (changing the
> actual
> important version number to "previous stable release"), is opposite of the
> whole
> purpose for retaining these add-ons in legacy. That is what the stable
> section
> is for.
>
> Unless I misunderstand what you mean.
>
> Luke
>
>   On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Noelia Ruiz wrote:
>
>> Another thing to do maybe to include a reference to providers in the
>> stable webpage, since drivers are mentioned.
>> My opinion about moving and mentioning "the last stable release" of
>> NVDA is to encourage people to update NVDA when a new release is
>> available, for stability, security, and even for a better
>> collaboration in the future development (for catching bugs or other
>> contributions), and ever possible donations to NV Access, which I
>> suppose that many people can make when a new release is available.
>> Cheers
>>
>> 2019-11-28 5:37 GMT+01:00, Noelia Ruiz via Groups.Io
>> <nrm1977=gmail.com@groups.io>:
>>> I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
>>> above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
>>> reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> 2019-11-28 0:39 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact
>>>>> that
>>>>> Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases) may
>>>>> introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll change
>>>>> the
>>>>> wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
>>>>
>>>> That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to that
>>>> would
>>>> be
>>>> at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will
>>>> very
>>>> probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to be
>>>> for
>>>> this
>>>> whole thing.
>>>> I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern in
>>>> a
>>>> clear
>>>> way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.
>>>>
>>>> Luke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Luke Davis
> Moderator: the new NVDA Help mailing list! (https://groups.io/g/NVDAHelp)
> Author: Debug Helper NVDA add-on
> (https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/debugHelper.en.html)
>
>
>
>




--

Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com





--
Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com




 

Hi,

This will mean authors and the community must specify the last version an add-on is compatible with, except that some are so outdated that we don’t know which one to use as last compatible version.

For now I’ll use Luke’s suggestion (mention 2019.3 directly) earlier than scheduled in order to avoid confusion (at least it’ll say, “upcoming 2019.3” to make it clear that 2019.3 is under development), along with leaving room for adding Derek’s suggestion.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io> On Behalf Of derek riemer
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 12:06 PM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io Group Moderators <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this week, community maintenance

 

Hi:

It seems that the wording should be written to say that addons listed here are not compatible with the most recent version of NVDA, and were deprecated at some previous time.

 

The following add-ons are no longer actively developed or compatible with recent NVDA releases. Addons listed here should have the last version of NVDA they actively support listed. Use on later versions of NVDA may break things. If you wish to maintain these add-ons, including making them compatible with recent NVDA releases, you can request to become the maintainer by writing to the add-ons development mailing list. The source code repositories of these add-ons can be listed here, patches welcome. More information about this procedure can be found by going to the processes section.

 

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:37 AM Noelia Ruiz <nrm1977@...> wrote:

Hi, maybe I haven't explained clearly what I mean. I think that, in
the legacy section, we should clarify that add-ons found there are not
compatible, or ar not needed, for the current stable release of NVDA
or above. I used the word latest instead of current. My purpose is to
clarify the purpose of the legacy section without mentioning a version
number, since when NVDA 2020.2, for example, is released, the same
explanation is stil valid, even when add-ons need to be updated due to
big changes in NVDA.
What I mean is that using the word recent or 2019.3 and above, related
to NVDA versions, is more ambiguous than saying "the current stable
release".
Also, don't worry if you disagree with me. I love discussions with
interesting people if I have time :)
Cheers

2019-11-28 8:14 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
> Noelia,
>
> I'm sorry, but regretfully I have to disagree with you again.
>
> I believe the whole point of keeping legacy add-ons at all, is that either
> some
> people can't update beyond certain versions of NVDA, and therefore need
> older
> add-ons; or some people require certain add-ons that will only work with
> older
> versions of NVDA.
>
> Encouraging them to update by making the wording less clear (changing the
> actual
> important version number to "previous stable release"), is opposite of the
> whole
> purpose for retaining these add-ons in legacy. That is what the stable
> section
> is for.
>
> Unless I misunderstand what you mean.
>
> Luke
>
>   On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Noelia Ruiz wrote:
>
>> Another thing to do maybe to include a reference to providers in the
>> stable webpage, since drivers are mentioned.
>> My opinion about moving and mentioning "the last stable release" of
>> NVDA is to encourage people to update NVDA when a new release is
>> available, for stability, security, and even for a better
>> collaboration in the future development (for catching bugs or other
>> contributions), and ever possible donations to NV Access, which I
>> suppose that many people can make when a new release is available.
>> Cheers
>>
>> 2019-11-28 5:37 GMT+01:00, Noelia Ruiz via Groups.Io
>> <nrm1977=gmail.com@groups.io>:
>>> I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
>>> above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
>>> reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> 2019-11-28 0:39 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact
>>>>> that
>>>>> Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases) may
>>>>> introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll change
>>>>> the
>>>>> wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
>>>>
>>>> That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to that
>>>> would
>>>> be
>>>> at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will
>>>> very
>>>> probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to be
>>>> for
>>>> this
>>>> whole thing.
>>>> I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern in
>>>> a
>>>> clear
>>>> way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.
>>>>
>>>> Luke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Luke Davis
> Moderator: the new NVDA Help mailing list! (https://groups.io/g/NVDAHelp)
> Author: Debug Helper NVDA add-on
> (https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/debugHelper.en.html)
>
>
>
>




--

Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com



derek riemer
 

Hi:
It seems that the wording should be written to say that addons listed here are not compatible with the most recent version of NVDA, and were deprecated at some previous time.

The following add-ons are no longer actively developed or compatible with recent NVDA releases. Addons listed here should have the last version of NVDA they actively support listed. Use on later versions of NVDA may break things. If you wish to maintain these add-ons, including making them compatible with recent NVDA releases, you can request to become the maintainer by writing to the add-ons development mailing list. The source code repositories of these add-ons can be listed here, patches welcome. More information about this procedure can be found by going to the processes section.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:37 AM Noelia Ruiz <nrm1977@...> wrote:
Hi, maybe I haven't explained clearly what I mean. I think that, in
the legacy section, we should clarify that add-ons found there are not
compatible, or ar not needed, for the current stable release of NVDA
or above. I used the word latest instead of current. My purpose is to
clarify the purpose of the legacy section without mentioning a version
number, since when NVDA 2020.2, for example, is released, the same
explanation is stil valid, even when add-ons need to be updated due to
big changes in NVDA.
What I mean is that using the word recent or 2019.3 and above, related
to NVDA versions, is more ambiguous than saying "the current stable
release".
Also, don't worry if you disagree with me. I love discussions with
interesting people if I have time :)
Cheers

2019-11-28 8:14 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
> Noelia,
>
> I'm sorry, but regretfully I have to disagree with you again.
>
> I believe the whole point of keeping legacy add-ons at all, is that either
> some
> people can't update beyond certain versions of NVDA, and therefore need
> older
> add-ons; or some people require certain add-ons that will only work with
> older
> versions of NVDA.
>
> Encouraging them to update by making the wording less clear (changing the
> actual
> important version number to "previous stable release"), is opposite of the
> whole
> purpose for retaining these add-ons in legacy. That is what the stable
> section
> is for.
>
> Unless I misunderstand what you mean.
>
> Luke
>
>   On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Noelia Ruiz wrote:
>
>> Another thing to do maybe to include a reference to providers in the
>> stable webpage, since drivers are mentioned.
>> My opinion about moving and mentioning "the last stable release" of
>> NVDA is to encourage people to update NVDA when a new release is
>> available, for stability, security, and even for a better
>> collaboration in the future development (for catching bugs or other
>> contributions), and ever possible donations to NV Access, which I
>> suppose that many people can make when a new release is available.
>> Cheers
>>
>> 2019-11-28 5:37 GMT+01:00, Noelia Ruiz via Groups.Io
>> <nrm1977=gmail.com@groups.io>:
>>> I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
>>> above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
>>> reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> 2019-11-28 0:39 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact
>>>>> that
>>>>> Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases) may
>>>>> introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll change
>>>>> the
>>>>> wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
>>>>
>>>> That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to that
>>>> would
>>>> be
>>>> at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will
>>>> very
>>>> probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to be
>>>> for
>>>> this
>>>> whole thing.
>>>> I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern in
>>>> a
>>>> clear
>>>> way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.
>>>>
>>>> Luke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Luke Davis
> Moderator: the new NVDA Help mailing list! (https://groups.io/g/NVDAHelp)
> Author: Debug Helper NVDA add-on
> (https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/debugHelper.en.html)
>
>
>
>





--
Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com




Noelia Ruiz
 

Hi, maybe I haven't explained clearly what I mean. I think that, in
the legacy section, we should clarify that add-ons found there are not
compatible, or ar not needed, for the current stable release of NVDA
or above. I used the word latest instead of current. My purpose is to
clarify the purpose of the legacy section without mentioning a version
number, since when NVDA 2020.2, for example, is released, the same
explanation is stil valid, even when add-ons need to be updated due to
big changes in NVDA.
What I mean is that using the word recent or 2019.3 and above, related
to NVDA versions, is more ambiguous than saying "the current stable
release".
Also, don't worry if you disagree with me. I love discussions with
interesting people if I have time :)
Cheers

2019-11-28 8:14 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:

Noelia,

I'm sorry, but regretfully I have to disagree with you again.

I believe the whole point of keeping legacy add-ons at all, is that either
some
people can't update beyond certain versions of NVDA, and therefore need
older
add-ons; or some people require certain add-ons that will only work with
older
versions of NVDA.

Encouraging them to update by making the wording less clear (changing the
actual
important version number to "previous stable release"), is opposite of the
whole
purpose for retaining these add-ons in legacy. That is what the stable
section
is for.

Unless I misunderstand what you mean.

Luke

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Noelia Ruiz wrote:

Another thing to do maybe to include a reference to providers in the
stable webpage, since drivers are mentioned.
My opinion about moving and mentioning "the last stable release" of
NVDA is to encourage people to update NVDA when a new release is
available, for stability, security, and even for a better
collaboration in the future development (for catching bugs or other
contributions), and ever possible donations to NV Access, which I
suppose that many people can make when a new release is available.
Cheers

2019-11-28 5:37 GMT+01:00, Noelia Ruiz via Groups.Io
<nrm1977=gmail.com@groups.io>:
I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
Cheers

2019-11-28 0:39 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:

I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact
that
Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases) may
introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll change
the
wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to that
would
be
at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will
very
probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to be
for
this
whole thing.
I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern in
a
clear
way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.

Luke







--
Luke Davis
Moderator: the new NVDA Help mailing list! (https://groups.io/g/NVDAHelp)
Author: Debug Helper NVDA add-on
(https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/debugHelper.en.html)



Luke Davis
 

Noelia,

I'm sorry, but regretfully I have to disagree with you again.

I believe the whole point of keeping legacy add-ons at all, is that either some people can't update beyond certain versions of NVDA, and therefore need older add-ons; or some people require certain add-ons that will only work with older versions of NVDA.

Encouraging them to update by making the wording less clear (changing the actual important version number to "previous stable release"), is opposite of the whole purpose for retaining these add-ons in legacy. That is what the stable section is for.

Unless I misunderstand what you mean.

Luke

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Noelia Ruiz wrote:

Another thing to do maybe to include a reference to providers in the
stable webpage, since drivers are mentioned.
My opinion about moving and mentioning "the last stable release" of
NVDA is to encourage people to update NVDA when a new release is
available, for stability, security, and even for a better
collaboration in the future development (for catching bugs or other
contributions), and ever possible donations to NV Access, which I
suppose that many people can make when a new release is available.
Cheers

2019-11-28 5:37 GMT+01:00, Noelia Ruiz via Groups.Io
<nrm1977=gmail.com@groups.io>:
I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
Cheers

2019-11-28 0:39 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:

I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact that
Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases) may
introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll change
the
wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to that
would
be
at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will very
probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to be for
this
whole thing.
I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern in a
clear
way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.

Luke






--
Luke Davis
Moderator: the new NVDA Help mailing list! (https://groups.io/g/NVDAHelp)
Author: Debug Helper NVDA add-on (https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/debugHelper.en.html)

Luke Davis
 

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Noelia Ruiz wrote:

I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
Not so.

If, just say for example, the NVDA Remote add-on was made legacy because it wouldn't be updated.
Or even Joseph Screen Curtain add-on which has been made legacy.

If we change it to say "the last stable release", and NVDA 2019.4 or 2020.1 or whatever comes out, that would imply that Screen Curtain would work with 2019.3. however, that isn't true at all.

Keep in mind, that the thing making most of these add-ons legacy, is Python 3, and the changes in 2019.3 made around Python 3.

2019.3 is a very important factor in legacy add-ons. Maybe it will become less of one over time, but for now at least, 2019.3 and after is what made these add-ons legacy.

The last stable release is what is called a moving target.

Luke

Noelia Ruiz
 

Another thing to do maybe to include a reference to providers in the
stable webpage, since drivers are mentioned.
My opinion about moving and mentioning "the last stable release" of
NVDA is to encourage people to update NVDA when a new release is
available, for stability, security, and even for a better
collaboration in the future development (for catching bugs or other
contributions), and ever possible donations to NV Access, which I
suppose that many people can make when a new release is available.
Cheers

2019-11-28 5:37 GMT+01:00, Noelia Ruiz via Groups.Io
<nrm1977=gmail.com@groups.io>:

I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
Cheers

2019-11-28 0:39 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:

I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact that
Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases) may
introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll change
the
wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to that
would
be
at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will very
probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to be for
this
whole thing.
I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern in a
clear
way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.

Luke





Noelia Ruiz
 

I would simply use "the last stable release" instead of 2019.3 or
above, since this sould aply for future releases regardles of the
reason that causes an add-on to become incompatible or unusable.
Cheers

2019-11-28 0:39 GMT+01:00, Luke Davis <luke@...>:

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:

I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact that
Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases) may
introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll change the
wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to that would
be
at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will very
probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to be for
this
whole thing.
I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern in a
clear
way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.

Luke



 

Hi,
I understand.
Cheers,
Joseph

-----Original Message-----
From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io>
On Behalf Of Luke Davis
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 3:40 PM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent author
presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this week,
community maintenance

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:

I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact that
Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases) may
introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll change the
wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.

That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to that would
be at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will very
probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to be for
this whole thing.
I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern in a
clear way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.

Luke

Luke Davis
 

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:

I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact that Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases) may introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll change the wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
That is nice forward-looking language choice, but us switching to that would be at least a year away, if not more likely 18 months. By then, we will very probably have a different solution either in place or scheduled to be for this whole thing.
I suggest that this is a case where addressing the immediate concern in a clear way, is more valuable than planning for future ones.

Luke

 

Hi,
I intentionally used "recent NVDA release" to account for the fact that Python 3.8 and 3.9 (if we ever get to upgrade to those releases) may introduce incompatible changes (at least Python 3.9 will). I'll change the wording to say "2019.3" once beta 1 ships.
Cheers,
Joseph

-----Original Message-----
From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io> On Behalf Of Luke Davis
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 11:45 PM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this week, community maintenance

This says "The following add-ons are no longer actively developed or incompatible with recent NvDA releases.".

Recent is relative to the person reading it.

Can this be changed to say something like:

"The following add-ons are no longer actively developed and are incompatible with NVDA version 2019.3 and above, though they may still be valuable when used with older versions of NVDA."

Luke


On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:


Hi,

I have created a legacy section page, along with updating the
processes document to talk about legacy status (add-ons reported as no longer developed or incompatible with recent NVDA releases will be listed as “legacy”).

Cheers,

Joseph



From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io
<nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io> On Behalf Of derek riemer
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:46 PM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io Group Moderators
<nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent
author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out
this week, community maintenance



Hi:

This is easy enough to create.

Create a legacy.mdwn with the following text, and put it under website/.



[[!meta title="Historic addons that do not work"]]



Attention! These addons do not work! # please update this to stick out.
This page lists addons that are no longer under development, and do
not work with NVDA. developers who are interested in making these addons compatible with NVDA should do so, and email the NVDA addons list to get the addon transferred to them.



[[!inline pages="tagged(legacy) and currentlang()" archive="yes"]]



Then, tag addons with legacy and remove stable and dev.



On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:59 PM Joseph Lee <@joslee> wrote:

Hi,
If we can create a way to tag add-ons as "legacy", then we can move legacy add-ons to a dedicated section once NVDA 2019.3 stable version comes
out.
Cheers,
Joseph

-----Original Message-----
From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rui Fontes
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 11:55 AM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this
week, community maintenance

I agree 100%!


Rui Fontes


Às 19:30 de 26/11/2019, Lukasz Golonka escreveu:
> Hello,
>
>
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:50:25 +0100
> "Noelia Ruiz" <nrm1977@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi, not sure. What about moving add-ons just to the development
>> section of the website without creating a new one?
>> Maybe simpler than creating a new section which may give a lot of
>> importance to add-ons not updated by authors.
>
> While your proposal would eliminate work required to create and
> maintain a new section I do not think that it is very user friendly.
>
> When I hear 'development section' my first thought is the section for
> add-ons which are not stable enough to bbe used, but are going to be
> in the future, because there are being worked on by their authors.
> The add-ons which we are discussing at the moment however, are nor
> unstable (they are simply not working with 2019.3) nor under active
> development (if they would be they would not be discussed in this
> context).
>
> In my view separate section is needed,
>







--

Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time! ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑
⠁⠞ ⠁ ⠐⠞⠖ • Accessibility enthusiast.
• Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
• Open source enthusiast.
• Skier.

• Personal website: https://derekriemer.com





--
Luke Davis
Moderator: the new NVDA Help mailing list! (https://groups.io/g/NVDAHelp)
Author: Debug Helper NVDA add-on (https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/debugHelper.en.html)

Luke Davis
 

This says "The following add-ons are no longer actively developed or incompatible with recent NvDA releases.".

Recent is relative to the person reading it.

Can this be changed to say something like:

"The following add-ons are no longer actively developed and are incompatible with NVDA version 2019.3 and above, though they may still be valuable when used with older versions of NVDA."

Luke

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Joseph Lee wrote:

Hi,
I have created a legacy section page, along with updating the processes document to talk about legacy status (add-ons reported as no longer developed or
incompatible with recent NVDA releases will be listed as “legacy”).
Cheers,
Joseph
 
From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io> On Behalf Of derek riemer
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:46 PM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io Group Moderators <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this week,
community maintenance
 
Hi:
This is easy enough to create.
Create a legacy.mdwn with the following text, and put it under website/.
 
[[!meta title="Historic addons that do not work"]]
 
Attention! These addons do not work! # please update this to stick out.
This page lists addons that are no longer under development, and do not work with NVDA. developers who are interested in making these addons compatible with
NVDA should do so, and email the NVDA addons list to get the addon transferred to them.
[[!inline  pages="tagged(legacy) and currentlang()" archive="yes"]]
 
Then, tag addons with legacy and remove stable and dev.
 
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:59 PM Joseph Lee <@joslee> wrote:

Hi,
If we can create a way to tag add-ons as "legacy", then we can move legacy add-ons to a dedicated section once NVDA 2019.3 stable version comes
out.
Cheers,
Joseph

-----Original Message-----
From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rui Fontes
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 11:55 AM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this
week, community maintenance

I agree 100%!

Rui Fontes

Às 19:30 de 26/11/2019, Lukasz Golonka escreveu:
> Hello,
>
>
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:50:25 +0100
> "Noelia Ruiz" <nrm1977@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi, not sure. What about moving add-ons just to the development
>> section of the website without creating a new one?
>> Maybe simpler than creating a new section which may give a lot of
>> importance to add-ons not updated by authors.
>
> While your proposal would eliminate work required to create and
> maintain a new section I do not think that it is very user friendly.
>
> When I hear 'development section' my first thought is the section for
> add-ons which are not stable enough to bbe used, but are going to be
> in the future, because there are being worked on by their authors.
> The add-ons which we are discussing at the moment however, are nor
> unstable (they are simply not working with 2019.3) nor under active
> development (if they would be they would not be discussed in this
> context).
>
> In my view separate section is needed,
>
--
Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.
•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com
--
Luke Davis
Moderator: the new NVDA Help mailing list! (https://groups.io/g/NVDAHelp)
Author: Debug Helper NVDA add-on (https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/debugHelper.en.html)

Luke Davis
 

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Noelia Ruiz wrote:

Hi, not sure. What about moving add-ons just to the development
section of the website without creating a new one?
Personally my objection to that, is what users think of the development section. Add-ons there are considered a work in progress, not ready for use except by the adventurous.
That is not true for add-ons that worked in earlier NVDA, but don't work in current.
So it would not be accurate for them to be in Development section.

Additionally, it clutters the dev section with things that are not at all under active development.

Luke

 

Hi,

I have created a legacy section page, along with updating the processes document to talk about legacy status (add-ons reported as no longer developed or incompatible with recent NVDA releases will be listed as “legacy”).

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io> On Behalf Of derek riemer
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:46 PM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io Group Moderators <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this week, community maintenance

 

Hi:

This is easy enough to create.

Create a legacy.mdwn with the following text, and put it under website/.

 

[[!meta title="Historic addons that do not work"]]

 

Attention! These addons do not work! # please update this to stick out.
This page lists addons that are no longer under development, and do not work with NVDA. developers who are interested in making these addons compatible with NVDA should do so, and email the NVDA addons list to get the addon transferred to them.



[[!inline  pages="tagged(legacy) and currentlang()" archive="yes"]]

 

Then, tag addons with legacy and remove stable and dev.

 

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:59 PM Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> wrote:

Hi,
If we can create a way to tag add-ons as "legacy", then we can move legacy add-ons to a dedicated section once NVDA 2019.3 stable version comes out.
Cheers,
Joseph

-----Original Message-----
From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rui Fontes
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 11:55 AM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this week, community maintenance

I agree 100%!


Rui Fontes


Às 19:30 de 26/11/2019, Lukasz Golonka escreveu:
> Hello,
>
>
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:50:25 +0100
> "Noelia Ruiz" <nrm1977@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi, not sure. What about moving add-ons just to the development
>> section of the website without creating a new one?
>> Maybe simpler than creating a new section which may give a lot of
>> importance to add-ons not updated by authors.
>
> While your proposal would eliminate work required to create and
> maintain a new section I do not think that it is very user friendly.
>
> When I hear 'development section' my first thought is the section for
> add-ons which are not stable enough to bbe used, but are going to be
> in the future, because there are being worked on by their authors.
> The add-ons which we are discussing at the moment however, are nor
> unstable (they are simply not working with 2019.3) nor under active
> development (if they would be they would not be discussed in this
> context).
>
> In my view separate section is needed,
>







--

Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com



Noelia Ruiz
 

OK, I will update reportPasswords this weekend in case speakPasswork
needs to be moved into legacy add-ons.
Cheers

2019-11-27 7:03 GMT+01:00, Joseph Lee <@joslee>:

Hi,
I'll take care of that, along with adding a notice about legacy add-ons in
both stable and dev pages.
Cheers,
Joseph

-----Original Message-----
From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io>
On Behalf Of Noelia Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 9:34 PM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent author
presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this week,
community maintenance

Thanks, if you want, I think we should make consistent the info about
accepted add-ons. In the development section we reflect that "Add-ons will
be added at the discretion of the community reviewers, considering factors
such as quality, usefulness and interest from the wider community". This
seems obvious, but this is not explicitly writen in the stable section, more
visible, and maybe confusing.
You may want to do this. My English is not quite good to deal with
documentation and I think it's better that people like native speakers work
on this. Just a suggestion :)

2019-11-27 5:46 GMT+01:00, derek riemer <driemer.riemer@...>:
If I have time after NVDACon2019 is uploaded, I'll do this. It won't
be this weekend though.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 9:45 PM Derek Riemer
<driemer.riemer@...>
wrote:

Hi:
This is easy enough to create.
Create a legacy.mdwn with the following text, and put it under website/.

[[!meta title="Historic addons that do not work"]]

Attention! These addons do not work! # please update this to stick out.
This page lists addons that are no longer under development, and do
not work with NVDA. developers who are interested in making these
addons compatible with NVDA should do so, and email the NVDA addons
list to get the addon transferred to them.



[[!inline pages="tagged(legacy) and currentlang()" archive="yes"]]

Then, tag addons with legacy and remove stable and dev.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:59 PM Joseph Lee
<@joslee>
wrote:

Hi,
If we can create a way to tag add-ons as "legacy", then we can move
legacy add-ons to a dedicated section once NVDA 2019.3 stable
version comes out.
Cheers,
Joseph

-----Original Message-----
From: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io <
nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rui Fontes
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 11:55 AM
To: nvda-addons@nvda-addons.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda-addons] Extended Winamp and others with no recent
author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out
this week, community maintenance

I agree 100%!


Rui Fontes


Às 19:30 de 26/11/2019, Lukasz Golonka escreveu:
Hello,


On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:50:25 +0100 "Noelia Ruiz"
<nrm1977@...> wrote:

Hi, not sure. What about moving add-ons just to the development
section of the website without creating a new one?
Maybe simpler than creating a new section which may give a lot of
importance to add-ons not updated by authors.
While your proposal would eliminate work required to create and
maintain a new section I do not think that it is very user friendly.

When I hear 'development section' my first thought is the section
for add-ons which are not stable enough to bbe used, but are going
to be in the future, because there are being worked on by their
authors.
The add-ons which we are discussing at the moment however, are nor
unstable (they are simply not working with 2019.3) nor under
active development (if they would be they would not be discussed
in this context).

In my view separate section is needed,





--
Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time! ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞

⠐⠞⠖
• Accessibility enthusiast.
• Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
• Open source enthusiast.
• Skier.

• Personal website: https://derekriemer.com




--
Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time! ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁
⠐⠞⠖
• Accessibility enthusiast.
• Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
• Open source enthusiast.
• Skier.

• Personal website: https://derekriemer.com