Hello Aaron and Jeff, My point was not to be at all disrespectful toward anyone. Unfortunately, I have dealt with a number of situations while testing Homer Layout where I didn't have any specifics on what was changed and updating caused serious problems. As a result, I will no longer use or recommend anyone else use that particular package until I see a change in practice. That's quite unfortunate, as its potential for providing a solid JAWS keyboard emulation for Window-Eyes remains high. I appreciate both of your efforts in creating documentation that tells me, as a mere user, what changes have been made so as to further inform my decision making. Yes, Jamal, you certainly can do anything you like with your scripts. I respect that. I also respect GW Micro's unwillingness to place many restrictions on SC. All the same, though I will be as respectful as I know how to be, I'll continue to advocate for some basic best practices that serve to protect the user community. Although you don't receive money from those of us who use your scripts, you do receive a certain amount of prestige and recognition. I still respect your hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of hard work. I'm sure many others feel the same. Please be sure you don't end up working against yourself to reduce this status. :-)
I guess all of you can see that I feel quite strongly about a few things. I'm always quite happy to have conversations in less public venues if anyone is interested. Meantime, I understand that I've said enough on this public list about my feelings concerning the need to include change logs or release notes in script updates. I shall no longer repeat myself on this point. Instead, I shall vote with my own copy of Window-Eyes by taking care to make sure I have at least some idea about what I am getting before performing an update to any script package. Thanks for reading... Darrell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 8:10 PM Subject: Re[2]: New Direct Text package I'll chime in here as well, seeing as how SC is my baby. Posting what's changed in a script update is really up to the script author, and is not something that should be required. If you don't trust a script because of a lack of update information, or are not comfortable installing a script without knowing what's new, then don't use it. The open community model that SC provides will control the success of a script. If enough people stop using a script because they're not being told what it does, or what changes have been made, then the script author may need to re-evaluate his or her approach. Personally, I try to include at least a small snippet of all the changes I make between versions. Not only does it create a constructive dialog with my users about what I'm doing (especially for those who are not subscribed to any GW email list), it helps me keep track of what I've done. This provides me with a sort of development history. It's easy for me to review the changes that have been made because I take the time to note them. I also feel that the change history is part of script development. To me, a script is not completed when the package is created, but instead is completed when the package is made available to users with the appropriate information as to why I'm bothing them with an update in the first -----Original Message----- From: "J.J. Meddaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Date: 09/22/08 22:48 Subject: Re: New Direct Text package I have to agree. Each author has their own way of expressing changes to a script. I'm considering going to an external changelog linked to on my scripts, for example. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jared Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 10:45 PM Subject: Re: New Direct Text package > Darrell Shandrow wrote: > "I'd go so far as to say that a change log or release notes ought to, > somehow, be required by GW Micro in order to post on SC..." > Somehow I think this would only drive people away from SC and thus > neutralize its SC's usefulness as a whole. > > > JW >
