[WG: Accessibility] [Management] 2.7.0: FckEditor upgrade to CK 3.0.1

Mon Nov 2 14:20:52 PST 2009

Our accessibility team can meet tomorrow and work up a quick plan on how we will test it. We'll choose a protocol and see if we have any needs. I'm guessing we can simply test their demo or we'll download it and make a quick page to host it on one of our servers.

Eli is wanting to see our testing protocol, so I'll send that out and our plan tomorrow. We could probably have it tested by Wednesday. It looks from Ken Petri like it is an improvement, so testing it might go pretty quickly!

-Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: khomotso at gmail.com [mailto:khomotso at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Clay Fenlason
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 4:53 PM
To: Richwine, Brian L
Subject: Fwd: [WG: Accessibility] [Management] 2.7.0: FckEditor upgrade to CK 3.0.1

Looks like I'm not on the accessibility list, so this (below) didn't go through.

~Clay

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Clay Fenlason <clay.fenlason at et.gatech.edu>
Date: Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WG: Accessibility] [Management] 2.7.0: FckEditor upgrade
to CK 3.0.1
To: "management at collab.sakaiproject.org"
<management at collab.sakaiproject.org>, Sakai Accessibility WG
<accessibility at collab.sakaiproject.org>

It would be terrific to get that extra dose of confidence in the
virtues of CKEditor, Brian. Would you need help getting set up for
such a test, and could it be done soon?

~Clay

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Richwine, Brian L <brichwin at indiana.edu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We would be happy to perform an accessibility evaluation on the new CKEditor if one is needed. We can check it against our normal accessibility testing protocol as well as a functional test with JAWS and WindowEyes.
>
> -Brian
>
>
> Brian Richwine
> Adaptive Technology Support Specialist
> Adaptive Technology and Accessibility Centers
> Indiana University - Bloomington/Indianapolis
> http://iuadapts.indiana.edu
> (812) 856-4112
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessibility-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org [mailto:accessibility-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] On Behalf Of Eli Cochran
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 4:20 PM
> To: elledge at msu.edu
> Cc: management at collab.sakaiproject.org; Sakai Accessibility WG; Clay Fenlason
> Subject: Re: [WG: Accessibility] [Management] 2.7.0: FckEditor upgrade to CK 3.0.1
>
> Mike,
> Has anyone in the accessibility community evaluated the new CKEditor
> to determine if it really does deliver on the promise of being more
> accessible?
>
> - Eli
>
> On Nov 2, 2009, at 7:00 AM, Mike Elledge wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone--
>>
>> FCKeditor has been a such a critical accessibility issue for sooooo
>> lonnnnggggg that it would be a huge win for Sakai if you could
>> update to a more accessible version. I realize that it touches many
>> areas of Sakai, so it isn't a trivial change. Nonetheless, it would
>> be very welcome.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Clay Fenlason wrote:
>>> At first glance I would say the real issue here is the maintenance
>>> one: what the scope of QA would be, given the ubiquity of the editor.
>>> It's not entirely comforting to think of this as a drive-by drop in
>>> from Josh without a commitment to fix issues that may surface during
>>> QA (if I'm reading the email thread right), but again that seems to
>>> me
>>> the sort of call that a combination of technical review and QA
>>> leadership should resolve in community discussion.  Maybe even - dare
>>> I say it - a good issue for a maintenance team to weigh in on.
>>>
>>> That said, if I look at what CKEditor 3.0 is all about, I find the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> http://ckeditor.com/blog/CKEditor_3.0_is_here
>>>
>>> ... which includes "Brand New UI" and "New Javascript API." I still
>>> think a maintenance/QA review should take the lead on these kinds of
>>> questions, not the product council as a general rule, but CKEditor
>>> 3.0
>>> is clearly more than just a bugfix release, and should be discussed
>>> on-list before inclusion.
>>>
>>> ~Clay
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Anthony Whyte <arwhyte at umich.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Councillors--Josh Ryan suggests that we consider for 2.7.0
>>>> upgrading the
>>>> FckEditor (currently 2.6.4) to the renamed CK 3.0.1.  I replied to
>>>> him that
>>>> such an upgrade (considering it's wide-ranging impact across the
>>>> tool set)
>>>> might require consideration by the Product Council.  "Might" is the
>>>> operative word here since it is unclear to me at present if such
>>>> an upgrade
>>>> requires Product Council approval given that it may well fall into
>>>> the
>>>> "maintenance" category.  Your views on this question would be
>>>> appreciated.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Anth
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>> From: Noah Botimer <botimer at umich.edu>
>>>> Date: October 30, 2009 12:56:14 PM EDT
>>>> To: Anthony Whyte <arwhyte at umich.edu>
>>>> Cc: Joshua Ryan <josh at asu.edu>, Clay Fenlason <clay.fenlason at et.gatech.edu
>>>> >
>>>> Subject: Re: 2.7.0 textarea (new feature freeze 12 Nov 2009)
>>>> I think this is worth serious investigation. Although it is new
>>>> code from
>>>> them, we're talking about a Sakai release with a long lifetime.
>>>> Their 2.6
>>>> branch has been stagnant for quite a while and they've been
>>>> addressing many
>>>> issues in the new line (notably accessibility and abysmal
>>>> performance).
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how I would classify it in relation to the new
>>>> process. R&D?
>>>> Incubation? Product Development? Maintenance?
>>>>
>>>> Since there is already the pluggable editor functionality, it may
>>>> even be
>>>> possible to include it as an option (maybe the default), rather
>>>> than a
>>>> replacement. That might free us up for some process options.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Noah
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 30, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Anthony Whyte wrote:
>>>>
>>>> CK 3 sounds good but we've got a new development process overseen
>>>> by the
>>>> Product Council and I imagine they might need to approve such a
>>>> change.  I'm
>>>> cc'ing Clay and Noah (who has a long interest in FCK) for their
>>>> thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Anth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 30, 2009, at 11:58 AM, Joshua Ryan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey Anthony,
>>>>
>>>> . . . I don't really foresee having time to do much for 2.7.0,
>>>>
>>>> however the latest version of the FCKeditor (3.01, now called
>>>>
>>>> CKeditor) is pretty damn nice. It's substantially faster and it's
>>>>
>>>> finally fully accessible! So if I can scrap together some time that
>>>>
>>>> could be a very nice change but I really can't promise anything
>>>> and I
>>>>
>>>> wouldn't want to hold things up at all. How about I try to sneak
>>>> it in
>>>>
>>>> this weekend and if I don't get most of the way done by Monday then
>>>>
>>>> just pretend I didn't mention it and branch when ever you want.
>>>>
>>>> /Josh
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Anthony Whyte <arwhyte at umich.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Josh--I may well be taking on Pete Peterson's Foundation QA
>>>> oversight role
>>>>
>>>> on an interim basis through the release of 2.7.0 in my capacity as
>>>> release
>>>>
>>>> manager.  As a first step I would like to propose that we impose a
>>>> feature
>>>>
>>>> freeze on core trunk code intended for 2.7.0 earlier than Pete's
>>>> original
>>>>
>>>> proposal included below.  If I could, I'd say let's freeze
>>>> tomorrow and I'll
>>>>
>>>> create the 2.7.x branch.  But instead I'd like to impose a feature
>>>> freeze on
>>>>
>>>> Thursday, 12 November 2009, 8:00 pm EST and then create the 2.7.x
>>>>
>>>> immediately thereafter.  That is two weeks from now.
>>>>
>>>> Projects on an independent release track will not be affected by
>>>> this date
>>>>
>>>> (e.g., msgcntr) although we need those teams to start putting out
>>>> stable
>>>>
>>>> releases (binding to snapshot versions is not acceptable in a
>>>> release).  A
>>>>
>>>> freeze on message bundles can occur later.  Bug fixes can of
>>>> course continue
>>>>
>>>> to flow from trunk into 2.7.x unhindered until we decide on a
>>>> release
>>>>
>>>> candidate date, when bugs will be triaged thereafter (e.g.,
>>>> blockers,
>>>>
>>>> critical fixes get priority).
>>>>
>>>> So for textarea would such a date work for you?  If not can you
>>>> summarize
>>>>
>>>> for me new features that you intend to add that make this date
>>>> problematic
>>>>
>>>> for you.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Anthony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> management mailing list
>>>> management at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/management
>>>>
>>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to management-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>>> with a subject of "unsubscribe"
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> management mailing list
>>> management at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/management
>>>
>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to management-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>>  with a subject of "unsubscribe"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> <melledge.vcf>_______________________________________________
>> accessibility mailing list
>> accessibility at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility
>>
>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to accessibility-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>  with a subject of "unsubscribe"
>
> . . . . . . . . . . .  .  .   .    .      .         .              .                     .
>
> Eli Cochran
> user interaction developer
> ETS, UC Berkeley
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> accessibility mailing list
> accessibility at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to accessibility-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"
>