locked Re: NVDA remote
Hello NVDA community,toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Like many of you, it pains me to see no short-term solution in sight for NVDA Remote, an add-on that is crucial to many. Let me take a moment to address a few things that has arisen about this add-on and the subsequent discussion:
1. Is Remote add-on supported in NVDA 2019.3: The short answer is "no". For practical purposes, it won't work. The "real" answer is that it'll take a while for add-on source code to be refactored - not only to work with Python 3, but because it patches NVDA in a way that makes it hard to write workarounds. If NVDA 2019.3 only came with Python 3 code, it would have been easier to write a short workaround and publish it to the community (I would have asked permission from add-on authors to release a patch). However, NVDA 2019.3 is more than just a Python 3 release - it includes a host of changes, some of which are backwards incompatible to a point where several add-ons in addition to Remote are affected (mostly dealing with speech related changes). For these reasons, it took add-ons community a while to get add-ons ready for 2019.3 (not only modifying source code, but testing to make sure add-ons are working as advertised in old and new NVDA releases). And given the massive scale of changes in NVDA 2019.3, future updates for many add-ons will not be compatible with older NVDA releases.
2. What did Remote add-on authors say: late last year, one of the developers of NVDA Remote add-on did contact NV Access, requesting help in preparing Remote add-on for NVDA 2019.3. In short, the community effort to raise concerns about the add-on did have an impact. This does not mean our journey is over - the issue has become more urgent, seeing that stable version of NVDA 2019.3 is not far away and Python 2 is dead (yes, dead).
3. Contacting Remote add-on authors: as Robert put it (although forcefully, I think), the best communication channel is contacting authors directly. I know that people will continue to ask about status of Remote add-on, and unless the situation changes, the best advice you can give is directing people to contact authors.
4. Perceived rudeness of Robert's plea: on one hand, Robert did the right thing by asking people to talk to add-on developers. On the other hand, his style was perceived as rude. I think a number of factors may have influenced his tone: frustration with people not taking community advice (although I would say that people did contact authors directly, including myself), tendency for repetitions (happens in forums like this, which is understandable), and to highlight urgency of this matter (again, the issue of Remote add-on is something add-ons community and NV Access are keeping an eye on). However, let me make one thing clear: just because today is New Year's Day should NOT be reason to label someone as "rude" when livelihoods of tens of hundreds of people are at stake without ability to use Remote add-on for various tasks; to me, that's "masking the reality" - creating a celebratory mood just to get away from the issue at hand, and let me tell you: this tactic won't last long. Nor should we forget that people interpret our writing styles differently - people have different notions of "rudeness" and "urgency".
In regards to all this, although I have some reservations about Robert's tone, I'm in agreement with his overall argument. To paraphrase Robert's intended message in a way that might be helpful to some:
At this time, the best way is contacting authors unless the situation changes.
As an add-ons community representative, I'm going to keep an eye on this thread for a while - not because of the arguments made, but to monitor the emotional climate that has resulted from it.
From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Behalf Of Hareth
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] NVDA remote
Being correct or not, never justifies being rude to each other.
No matter how we try to re phrase it.
On 1/1/20, Brian Vogel <email@example.com> wrote:
Regardless of how indelicately Mr. Kingett may have been, he is correct.