[opensuse-factory] Proposal for new Bugzilla category
Hi developers, Yes, as a rare occasion a mail from the board on the factory list. The board has been approached about consideration of a new Accessibility (a11y) category in Bugzilla. While this is a technical issue, this specific technical issue carries with it a large community component and thus after discussion during the last board call we felt it was appropriate to approach the developer community with the proposal outlined below. We have weight both pros and cons for adding a new category in Bugzilla. The summary of the board discussion is available in the meeting minutes of the board call from 2013-03-25 (https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_meeting#Meeting_2013-03-25). Proposal: Add an Accessibility category to Bugzilla Accessibility bugs should be treated as major bugs, even issues that may appear small or minor to non handicapped users may have a profound effect on users that depend on a11y technology. It is preferable that accessibility fixes get released as updates in the current distribution. We do not have a dedicated team to address a11y bugs, thus the regular development teams and package maintainers are responsible for fixing a11y issues, just as they are today. However, these bugs will likely have a higher priority assignment than they have today. ========= The board is in favor of having an accessibility category in Bugzilla. However, ultimately this is a decision that rests with the development community. If there is no clear consensus within the developer community the board would appreciate if the release team could reach a conclusion and post a decision to the list. The developer community and release team may of course consider alternate proposals or work flows to address this expressed need. We would very much appreciate if you would consider this request and discuss the issue. Thank you, Your openSUSE Board -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Robert Schweikert wrote:
Proposal:
Add an Accessibility category to Bugzilla
Accessibility bugs should be treated as major bugs, even issues that may appear small or minor to non handicapped users may have a profound effect on users that depend on a11y technology. It is preferable that accessibility fixes get released as updates in the current distribution. We do not have a dedicated team to address a11y bugs, thus the regular development teams and package maintainers are responsible for fixing a11y issues, just as they are today. However, these bugs will likely have a higher priority assignment than they have today.
Immediate thought - this is almost entirely symbolic as it will not cause any change in the way bugs are handled. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (3.0°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free DNS hosting, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/29/2013 10:50 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
Robert Schweikert wrote:
Proposal:
Add an Accessibility category to Bugzilla
Accessibility bugs should be treated as major bugs, even issues that may appear small or minor to non handicapped users may have a profound effect on users that depend on a11y technology. It is preferable that accessibility fixes get released as updates in the current distribution. We do not have a dedicated team to address a11y bugs, thus the regular development teams and package maintainers are responsible for fixing a11y issues, just as they are today. However, these bugs will likely have a higher priority assignment than they have today.
Immediate thought - this is almost entirely symbolic as it will not cause any change in the way bugs are handled.
There is a symbolic "value" to this correct. However as a11y bugs would always be at least "Major" it should have an impact on how these bugs are treated. Secondly having a category makes it obvious for those filing the bugs where they belong. Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/29/2013 03:58 PM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
On 03/29/2013 10:50 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
Robert Schweikert wrote:
Proposal:
Add an Accessibility category to Bugzilla
Accessibility bugs should be treated as major bugs, even issues that may appear small or minor to non handicapped users may have a profound effect on users that depend on a11y technology. It is preferable that accessibility fixes get released as updates in the current distribution. We do not have a dedicated team to address a11y bugs, thus the regular development teams and package maintainers are responsible for fixing a11y issues, just as they are today. However, these bugs will likely have a higher priority assignment than they have today.
Immediate thought - this is almost entirely symbolic as it will not cause any change in the way bugs are handled.
There is a symbolic "value" to this correct. However as a11y bugs would always be at least "Major" it should have an impact on how these bugs are treated. Secondly having a category makes it obvious for those filing the bugs where they belong.
Why should they be "Major" by default? We have definitions on what the severity means and I strongly object to make any category by default Major. Let's stick to the definitions we have and not change them for one category, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/29/2013 01:31 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 03/29/2013 03:58 PM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
On 03/29/2013 10:50 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
Robert Schweikert wrote:
Proposal:
Add an Accessibility category to Bugzilla
Accessibility bugs should be treated as major bugs, even issues that may appear small or minor to non handicapped users may have a profound effect on users that depend on a11y technology. It is preferable that accessibility fixes get released as updates in the current distribution. We do not have a dedicated team to address a11y bugs, thus the regular development teams and package maintainers are responsible for fixing a11y issues, just as they are today. However, these bugs will likely have a higher priority assignment than they have today.
Immediate thought - this is almost entirely symbolic as it will not cause any change in the way bugs are handled.
There is a symbolic "value" to this correct. However as a11y bugs would always be at least "Major" it should have an impact on how these bugs are treated. Secondly having a category makes it obvious for those filing the bugs where they belong.
Why should they be "Major" by default? We have definitions on what the severity means and I strongly object to make any category by default Major. Let's stick to the definitions we have and not change them for one category,
This strikes at the heart of the issue. A simple example to demonstrated the problem. When there is a bug that does not allow the login manager to be audible our current criteria would not capture this as a critical bug. However to the user that is dependent on this to be able to use the system the bug is basically the same as if the kernel crashed, a kernel crash of course falls under the critical category. Therefore, an issue that may appear to be minor to those without handicap may have profound effects on people that depend on a11y functionality. There is somewhat of a disconnect between the existing severities and the impact w.r.t. a11y. We should address this disconnect. Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Robert Schweikert wrote:
On 03/29/2013 01:31 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 03/29/2013 03:58 PM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
There is a symbolic "value" to this correct. However as a11y bugs would always be at least "Major" it should have an impact on how these bugs are treated. Secondly having a category makes it obvious for those filing the bugs where they belong.
Why should they be "Major" by default? We have definitions on what the severity means and I strongly object to make any category by default Major. Let's stick to the definitions we have and not change them for one category,
This strikes at the heart of the issue.
A simple example to demonstrated the problem. When there is a bug that does not allow the login manager to be audible our current criteria would not capture this as a critical bug. However to the user that is dependent on this to be able to use the system the bug is basically the same as if the kernel crashed, a kernel crash of course falls under the critical category. Therefore, an issue that may appear to be minor to those without handicap may have profound effects on people that depend on a11y functionality.
Doesn't that go for all kinds of different issues - ie. to those who depend on them they're serious, to those who don't, they're not?
There is somewhat of a disconnect between the existing severities and the impact w.r.t. a11y. We should address this disconnect.
What is the significance of the severity today, if any at all? -- Per Jessen, Zürich (1.8°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free DNS hosting, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 2013-03-29 19:19 (GMT+0100) Per Jessen composed:
Robert Schweikert wrote:
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Robert Schweikert wrote:
There is a symbolic "value" to this correct. However as a11y bugs would always be at least "Major" it should have an impact on how these bugs are treated. Secondly having a category makes it obvious for those filing the bugs where they belong.
Why should they be "Major" by default? We have definitions on what the severity means and I strongly object to make any category by default Major. Let's stick to the definitions we have and not change them for one category,
This strikes at the heart of the issue.
A simple example to demonstrated the problem. When there is a bug that does not allow the login manager to be audible our current criteria would not capture this as a critical bug. However to the user that is dependent on this to be able to use the system the bug is basically the same as if the kernel crashed, a kernel crash of course falls under the critical category. Therefore, an issue that may appear to be minor to those without handicap may have profound effects on people that depend on a11y functionality.
Doesn't that go for all kinds of different issues - ie. to those who depend on them they're serious, to those who don't, they're not?
The difference is a11y bugs are show stoppers for reasons outside the control of those dependent on them, like a restroom door opening narrower than a wheelchair to a person confined to a wheelchair. Usually the only workaround for a11y bugs is demeaning enlisting of a non-dependent person to aid the dependent or an expensive or otherwise unavailable appliance. Other major bugs tend to be non-discriminatory, affecting all users equally.
There is somewhat of a disconnect between the existing severities and the impact w.r.t. a11y. We should address this disconnect.
Not incorporating effort like this is in essence saying a11y dependents need to look to a limited feature distro such as ALViC instead of trying to use openSUSE, which is also demeaning. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/29/2013 07:03 PM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
On 03/29/2013 01:31 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 03/29/2013 03:58 PM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
On 03/29/2013 10:50 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
Robert Schweikert wrote:
Proposal:
Add an Accessibility category to Bugzilla
Accessibility bugs should be treated as major bugs, even issues that may appear small or minor to non handicapped users may have a profound effect on users that depend on a11y technology. It is preferable that accessibility fixes get released as updates in the current distribution. We do not have a dedicated team to address a11y bugs, thus the regular development teams and package maintainers are responsible for fixing a11y issues, just as they are today. However, these bugs will likely have a higher priority assignment than they have today.
Immediate thought - this is almost entirely symbolic as it will not cause any change in the way bugs are handled.
There is a symbolic "value" to this correct. However as a11y bugs would always be at least "Major" it should have an impact on how these bugs are treated. Secondly having a category makes it obvious for those filing the bugs where they belong.
Why should they be "Major" by default? We have definitions on what the severity means and I strongly object to make any category by default Major. Let's stick to the definitions we have and not change them for one category,
This strikes at the heart of the issue.
A simple example to demonstrated the problem. When there is a bug that does not allow the login manager to be audible our current criteria would not capture this as a critical bug. However to the user that is dependent on this to be able to use the system the bug is basically the same as if the kernel crashed, a kernel crash of course falls under the critical category. Therefore, an issue that may appear to be minor to those without handicap may have profound effects on people that depend on a11y functionality.
Still, I doubt that each and every a11y related bug has this effects. Also, if a bug is a real ship stoppper, then mark it as such. If there is a ship stopper for a11y, then raise it with the release managers and let them track it. I hope everybody knows about the ship stopper flag and how to use it properly... Btw. today even if the login manager would not allow anybody to log in, it would be a major bug (unless the login manager crashes, then it's critical). The same logic applies for the a11y part - it's a *major* loss of functionality.
There is somewhat of a disconnect between the existing severities and the impact w.r.t. a11y. We should address this disconnect.
But now you're confusing the users. If you mark an a11y bug as critical or major, then you need to explain why this is a problem. As you said the developers might not be aware of the problem. Just changing the definition will not help - you need to explain better the issue. Robert, I'm fine with giving a11y better treatment but the proposal you make does not help IMO. I still think that my suggestion to create a dedicated team that screens the category and explains issues better where needed will have more effect, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/28/2013 10:49 PM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Hi developers,
Yes, as a rare occasion a mail from the board on the factory list.
The board has been approached about consideration of a new Accessibility (a11y) category in Bugzilla. While this is a technical issue, this specific technical issue carries with it a large community component and thus after discussion during the last board call we felt it was appropriate to approach the developer community with the proposal outlined below.
We have weight both pros and cons for adding a new category in Bugzilla. The summary of the board discussion is available in the meeting minutes of the board call from 2013-03-25 (https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_meeting#Meeting_2013-03-25).
Proposal:
Add an Accessibility category to Bugzilla
Accessibility bugs should be treated as major bugs, even issues that may appear small or minor to non handicapped users may have a profound effect on users that depend on a11y technology. It is preferable that accessibility fixes get released as updates in the current distribution. We do not have a dedicated team to address a11y bugs, thus the regular development teams and package maintainers are responsible for fixing a11y issues, just as they are today. However, these bugs will likely have a higher priority assignment than they have today.
=========
The board is in favor of having an accessibility category in Bugzilla. However, ultimately this is a decision that rests with the development community. If there is no clear consensus within the developer community the board would appreciate if the release team could reach a conclusion and post a decision to the list. The developer community and release team may of course consider alternate proposals or work flows to address this expressed need.
We would very much appreciate if you would consider this request and discuss the issue.
Since categories are different for each product, you have to name the product you like to have this for, so what exactly are you proposing? A category for openSUSE 12.3 and openSUSE Factory? Additionally, each category needs a default person that distributes the bugs to the right person. We do have a SUSE hired screening team but if you look at the list of bugs assigned to the team, you see that this doesn't work good enough and we need more people to screen. So, before adding a new category, I suggest to define how the bugs are handled - and the best way here is if you have two or three persons that take care of the new category and really help the initial reporters with creating great bug reports - and then the developers might have it easier to handle them, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 29.03.2013 18:29, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Additionally, each category needs a default person that distributes the bugs to the right person. We do have a SUSE hired screening team but if you look at the list of bugs assigned to the team, you see that this doesn't work good enough and we need more people to screen.
So, before adding a new category, I suggest to define how the bugs are handled - and the best way here is if you have two or three persons that take care of the new category and really help the initial reporters with creating great bug reports - and then the developers might have it easier to handle them,
Hi, In all fairness, I won't add new categories without someone handling the bugs. Handling in this case means verifying the problem and driving the solution. Usually a11y problems are always reported when it's too late as only a couple of users care - no developer from what I can say. And as long as we have no developer caring, I don't see us adding a category - don't shoot the messenger. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Hello, Am Donnerstag, 28. März 2013 schrieb Robert Schweikert:
Proposal:
Add an Accessibility category to Bugzilla
We already have component "Usability" in bugzilla (rarely used, about 10 or 15 bugreports per release). I know there are differences between usability and accessibility, but they have some things in common. I'm not sure if adding another component makes sense - maybe rename "Usability" to "Accessibility and Usability"?
Accessibility bugs should be treated as major bugs, even issues that may appear small or minor to non handicapped users may have a profound effect on users that depend on a11y technology.
Agreed. Regards, Christian Boltz --
welche log willst sehen ??? Das ist die Postfixbuch-Users Liste, vielleicht das Log von, hmmm, Postfix? Nur so ne Idee. [> R. Wilhelm und Ralf Hildebrandt in postfixbuch-users]
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:18:24 +0100
Christian Boltz
We already have component "Usability" in bugzilla (rarely used, about 10 or 15 bugreports per release). I know there are differences between usability and accessibility, but they have some things in common.
We better define what is usability and what accessibility. Usability problem: Software allows to accomplish task in a, more or less, cumbersome way. Interface works, but it is hard to give commands, or decipher output. Accessibility problem: User can't use computer as essential human interface does not work. There is no way to give commands, or have output. Another problem that I see is organization of bugzilla. We are discussing Component column in the: https://bugzilla.novell.com/query.cgi?format=advanced Is "accessibility" really a component? It is more like class of problems and should end in a classification because it can appear in any product, component and version. Users should be able to report accessibility bug for any of those. The same should be valid for usability, development and update problems, but changing that now will just mess up bugzilla. Some bugs will be components, some classes. Moving all means a lot of work in bugzilla and all support tools. While moving can be automated, support tools are not only those maintained by (open)SUSE, but also those developed by customers. -- Regards, Rajko. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, Le jeudi 28 mars 2013, à 17:49 -0400, Robert Schweikert a écrit :
Proposal:
Add an Accessibility category to Bugzilla
Accessibility bugs should be treated as major bugs, even issues that may appear small or minor to non handicapped users may have a profound effect on users that depend on a11y technology. It is preferable that accessibility fixes get released as updates in the current distribution. We do not have a dedicated team to address a11y bugs, thus the regular development teams and package maintainers are responsible for fixing a11y issues, just as they are today. However, these bugs will likely have a higher priority assignment than they have today.
I would favor an approach based on the whiteboard. The whiteboard is really a nice feature that can be used to easily track bugs, and I think it'd be a good way to track accessibility bugs living in different components. However, as you already pointed out to me, one major issue with the whiteboard is that many don't know how to use (or even that it exists). So that would need to be explained somewhere, on a wiki page where we talk about our accessibility support for instance. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (8)
-
Andreas Jaeger -
Christian Boltz -
Felix Miata -
Per Jessen -
Rajko -
Robert Schweikert -
Stephan Kulow -
Vincent Untz