[Edbrowse-dev] wiki

[Karl Dahlke <eklhad@comcast.net>]

Thanks Adam for your feedback.
I will make a couple responses, then should we take this discussion off line -
as this list is more for development and all
the technical issues that still confront us??

> should there be a reference to ed when talking about it?

Yes. Missed that one. Done.

> The philosophy section is largely unsourced.

Yes that was and is one of my concerns.
But it seems (to me) to important to omit.
It is the very reason for writing edbrowse in the first place.
It has to start somewhere, and I don't see ACM or I triple E publishing
a paper on it, so not sure how to get the ball rolling.
Worst case I suppose they could contest that particular section.

> describing the direction that accessibility should take.

Well I tried hard not to say where it *should* go, only pointing out
that there are different approaches.
Their writing guidelines say that's ok.
It's all right to say there are approaches A and B out there,
and even quote some people who support A and some people who support B,
as long as you quote both sides.
Like the Broken Windows theory of policing,
which I read about, where they quote people who like it and people who don't,
and that's ok; though I didn't want to work that hard,
or write that much, and I still don't want to,
but I think it would help to say approaches A and B exist,
because right now only about 100 people in the world know about approach B.

> Also, probably remove the link to Jupiter as it's very obscure.

I initially wanted to put it in, as opposed to speakup and the others
that you mention, because it uniquely isn't a screen reader.
It captures and reads a linear log of output, consistent with linear programs.
In that sense it is part of approach B.
But if you didn't get that subtle distinction then I'm not making the point
well enough, and it's too obscure and too tangential,
and you're right I just shouldn't go there.
This is about the editor browser, not various kinds of adapters.
So I have removed that link.

> you probably want to focus more on the technical and feature aspects

I hadn't thought of this.
A section called == Features ==
But as I write it in my mind, a b command to browse, a g command to go
to a hyperlink, etc, I wonder if it wouldn't be incomprehensible,
unless you were fluent in ed, which damn few people are.
I'll have to think about that one.

> and less on user opinions

Again, their writing guidelines say it is fine to quote peoples reactions
to a theory or idea or product,
they say it is even helpful to the reader,
as long as you are somewhat even handed.
And I do find these third party quotes in a lot of their articles.
John says String Theory does indeed explain the fabrik of the universe,
but Tim says it is a silly mathematical exercise.

Well no hurry on this, so I'll look through it again with your thoughts
in mind, and meantime we can continue to make the software better,
which is really what we're all about.

Thank you.

Karl Dahlke