Fluid 0.1 Release Delay
eli at media.berkeley.edu
Mon Oct 29 19:29:35 UTC 2007
I'm very glad that this decision was made. It seems to have been made
for all the right reasons.
However, I'm still curious if we have clear goals and guidelines for
this releases and releases in general.
A release should have a stated the goal as part of the release.
We're never going to release something that is perfect. The intension
of a given release, or part of a release, will determine how finished
something needs to be for inclusion in that release.
Maybe goals should be added here: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/
I'm just now doing a checkout of the svn repository but I want to
make sure that we're documenting the status of the different elements
of the release with:
- The status of the tool/pattern/documentation/etc:
- software component: proof of concept, in development, ready for
- pattern: draft, proposal, release, revision
- Features and Known issues.
- Changes since last release. (moot for this our first release)
- Next Steps
My 2 cents.
On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:52 AM, Barbara Glover wrote:
> Hi all,
> I agree with Daphne that this is a good step in ensuring our users'
> needs are being seriously considered and valued in the project.
> This really indicates Fluid is very committed to User Centered Design
> On 26-Oct-07, at 8:27 PM, Daphne Ogle wrote:
>> Although it is disappointing (and well...a hard thing to do) to
>> delay the release, I think this is just another indication of how
>> committed Fluid is to building quality software and components --
>> from the user experience and technical perspective. It's also
>> worth noting that this discussion and decision was very
>> collaborative. We are lucky to work with such great team
>> members. Thanks for that everyone!
>> On Oct 26, 2007, at 7:39 AM, Colin Clark wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> We have decided to delay the Fluid 0.1 release by a few weeks.
>>> our QA and review process, we came across a couple of blocker bugs
>>> related to recent drag and drop changes in the Reorderer. These
>>> are resolvable, but will take some time to fix.
>>> The UX team has been amazingly helpful with identifying and refining
>>> solutions for this. While the delay is disappointing, it shows our
>>> commitment to quality; we will not ship code with issues that the UX
>>> team consider problematic.
>>> At the heart of the issue is some missing affordances (or
>>> moments") during mouse-based interactions. This was a regression
>>> by recent necessary code changes. The latest design spec for the
>>> behaviour is available on our wiki at:
>>> More details about the issues are available in the Fluid issues
>>> Many of us will be attending the upcoming JA-SIG Unconference in two
>>> weeks. To accommodate this priority, I'd like to set the new release
>>> date for November 21st, giving us time to fix these issues and
>>> perform a
>>> full QA cycle.
>>> I apologize for the inconvenience that this delay may cause, and
>>> appreciate your patience. Let me know if you have any questions
>>> or concerns.
>>> Colin Clark
>>> Technical Lead, Fluid Project
>>> Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto
>>> fluid-work mailing list
>>> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>> Daphne Ogle
>> Senior Interaction Designer
>> University of California, Berkeley
>> Educational Technology Services
>> daphne at media.berkeley.edu
>> cell (510)847-0308
>> fluid-work mailing list
>> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> fluid-work mailing list
> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
user interaction developer
ETS, UC Berkeley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the fluid-work