Topics

Feedback wanted: add-on development and review processes documentation


 

Hello all,

A discussion arose on NVDA Add-ons mailing list regarding documentation on add-on review process. It turns out the community does have such a documentation:

https://addons.nvda-project.org/processes.en.html

 

As a community add-on reviewer, I’m interested in gathering feedback on this document. The goal of an upcoming documentation edit (and rename) is to strive toward friendliness – friendly toward users and add-on beginners (authors and reviewers), as well as make the process more transparent. Please either write to me directly or comment on NvDA Add-ons mailing list if you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions.

Cheers,

Joseph


Noelia Ruiz
 

Hello, just reading this. As a member of the community who has helped in add-ons review, I think that efforzs should be focused in the NV Access store proposal. They also requested feedback and of course I think that we can provide feedback privately, on mailing lists or wherever. I don"t know when they will work on this, but review processes are already writen. I think there are lots of add-ons not reviewed since this is hard for authors, that should follow guidelines and spend a time not required if they post add-ons for example on their websites or Dropbox.
I think that if addons could be searched from NVDA itself, like in Firefox (sometimes I have seen an edit box,  and I am thinking about Plover, an open source project for stenographers, like me, that also has a plugin manager to get plugins from GitHub repos without going to an external website), people maybe more motivated to use our processes.
Also, often new versions are posted without being reviewed by other people on the website, and the review process is hard, lot of time is required and if the store finally is out, I think that a serious work from community, with lot of dedicated time,  maybe required. But I would encourage to focus on the repo available on github, addonStoreProposal, fron nvaccess account. Otherwise I think we wil talk a lot around this topic without advancing, since we had guidelines and a review process and the problem maybe that there is no difference between our website and others. A friend said me about other communities reviewing addons on mailing list, testing them and posting links on other websites, so I think that the store, ensuring the commit related to the exact version of the downloaded addon and with a checklist of points reviewed, the person who is responsible for the review and posting etc may improve the situation, though I do not expect that people wants to be involved a lot since it is easier to post addons with less guidelines or standardized process required. Cheers

Enviado desde mi iPhone

El 2 oct 2020, a las 18:30, Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> escribió:



Hello all,

A discussion arose on NVDA Add-ons mailing list regarding documentation on add-on review process. It turns out the community does have such a documentation:

https://addons.nvda-project.org/processes.en.html

 

As a community add-on reviewer, I’m interested in gathering feedback on this document. The goal of an upcoming documentation edit (and rename) is to strive toward friendliness – friendly toward users and add-on beginners (authors and reviewers), as well as make the process more transparent. Please either write to me directly or comment on NvDA Add-ons mailing list if you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions.

Cheers,

Joseph


 

Hi,

I can envision the document being used as a basis for the review process to be followed on add-ons from a store mechanism – at least the ideas, that is. If a similar document from Store proposal exists, then there’s really no point of keeping the processes document in translations repo, which is an ideal case. But then we cannot ignore translators, thus the dilemma.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: nvda-devel@groups.io <nvda-devel@groups.io> On Behalf Of Noelia Ruiz
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2020 9:08 PM
To: nvda-devel@groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda-devel] Feedback wanted: add-on development and review processes documentation

 

Hello, just reading this. As a member of the community who has helped in add-ons review, I think that efforzs should be focused in the NV Access store proposal. They also requested feedback and of course I think that we can provide feedback privately, on mailing lists or wherever. I don"t know when they will work on this, but review processes are already writen. I think there are lots of add-ons not reviewed since this is hard for authors, that should follow guidelines and spend a time not required if they post add-ons for example on their websites or Dropbox.

I think that if addons could be searched from NVDA itself, like in Firefox (sometimes I have seen an edit box,  and I am thinking about Plover, an open source project for stenographers, like me, that also has a plugin manager to get plugins from GitHub repos without going to an external website), people maybe more motivated to use our processes.

Also, often new versions are posted without being reviewed by other people on the website, and the review process is hard, lot of time is required and if the store finally is out, I think that a serious work from community, with lot of dedicated time,  maybe required. But I would encourage to focus on the repo available on github, addonStoreProposal, fron nvaccess account. Otherwise I think we wil talk a lot around this topic without advancing, since we had guidelines and a review process and the problem maybe that there is no difference between our website and others. A friend said me about other communities reviewing addons on mailing list, testing them and posting links on other websites, so I think that the store, ensuring the commit related to the exact version of the downloaded addon and with a checklist of points reviewed, the person who is responsible for the review and posting etc may improve the situation, though I do not expect that people wants to be involved a lot since it is easier to post addons with less guidelines or standardized process required. Cheers

Enviado desde mi iPhone



El 2 oct 2020, a las 18:30, Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> escribió:



Hello all,

A discussion arose on NVDA Add-ons mailing list regarding documentation on add-on review process. It turns out the community does have such a documentation:

https://addons.nvda-project.org/processes.en.html

 

As a community add-on reviewer, I’m interested in gathering feedback on this document. The goal of an upcoming documentation edit (and rename) is to strive toward friendliness – friendly toward users and add-on beginners (authors and reviewers), as well as make the process more transparent. Please either write to me directly or comment on NvDA Add-ons mailing list if you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions.

Cheers,

Joseph


Noelia Ruiz
 

I think that when the store is out, part of it should be the translation process, If NVDA"s user guide can be on GitHub (it is downloaded when we clone the source code), the documents for processes could be also on GitHub and translated without dilemes. Another thing is how to implement this, but as you know Jamie asked about the possibility of using GitHub, not Assembla, for translations.
For me the problem is that we cannot work on this without help and for now we can just comment on addonsProposalStore. Then they may work on implementation.
Also, Github wikis and readmes of repos can be translated but the language cannot be set to other than English, so Github Pages maybe a solution for documents translated online if GitHub is fully used.
Cheers

Enviado desde mi iPhone

El 4 oct 2020, a las 6:11, Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> escribió:



Hi,

I can envision the document being used as a basis for the review process to be followed on add-ons from a store mechanism – at least the ideas, that is. If a similar document from Store proposal exists, then there’s really no point of keeping the processes document in translations repo, which is an ideal case. But then we cannot ignore translators, thus the dilemma.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: nvda-devel@groups.io <nvda-devel@groups.io> On Behalf Of Noelia Ruiz
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2020 9:08 PM
To: nvda-devel@groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda-devel] Feedback wanted: add-on development and review processes documentation

 

Hello, just reading this. As a member of the community who has helped in add-ons review, I think that efforzs should be focused in the NV Access store proposal. They also requested feedback and of course I think that we can provide feedback privately, on mailing lists or wherever. I don"t know when they will work on this, but review processes are already writen. I think there are lots of add-ons not reviewed since this is hard for authors, that should follow guidelines and spend a time not required if they post add-ons for example on their websites or Dropbox.

I think that if addons could be searched from NVDA itself, like in Firefox (sometimes I have seen an edit box,  and I am thinking about Plover, an open source project for stenographers, like me, that also has a plugin manager to get plugins from GitHub repos without going to an external website), people maybe more motivated to use our processes.

Also, often new versions are posted without being reviewed by other people on the website, and the review process is hard, lot of time is required and if the store finally is out, I think that a serious work from community, with lot of dedicated time,  maybe required. But I would encourage to focus on the repo available on github, addonStoreProposal, fron nvaccess account. Otherwise I think we wil talk a lot around this topic without advancing, since we had guidelines and a review process and the problem maybe that there is no difference between our website and others. A friend said me about other communities reviewing addons on mailing list, testing them and posting links on other websites, so I think that the store, ensuring the commit related to the exact version of the downloaded addon and with a checklist of points reviewed, the person who is responsible for the review and posting etc may improve the situation, though I do not expect that people wants to be involved a lot since it is easier to post addons with less guidelines or standardized process required. Cheers

Enviado desde mi iPhone



El 2 oct 2020, a las 18:30, Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> escribió:



Hello all,

A discussion arose on NVDA Add-ons mailing list regarding documentation on add-on review process. It turns out the community does have such a documentation:

https://addons.nvda-project.org/processes.en.html

 

As a community add-on reviewer, I’m interested in gathering feedback on this document. The goal of an upcoming documentation edit (and rename) is to strive toward friendliness – friendly toward users and add-on beginners (authors and reviewers), as well as make the process more transparent. Please either write to me directly or comment on NvDA Add-ons mailing list if you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions.

Cheers,

Joseph