RE: NVU, child of Mozilla Composer (Windows & Linux)

RE: NVU, child of Mozilla Composer (Windows & Linux)(I'm writing on top because of the format of the email)

I agree with all that Steve and John have said.

Whilst one naturally asks the question as to whether any WAI input would have any influence, as Composer has not shown any great efforts (well some in NVU) to try to correct its direction and try to become a try companion to Mozilla browser in regards to following web standards compliance, especially to the extent Mozilla achieved from the Netscape 4.x debacle, it may just do this if the developers are open to feedback.

If that can be achieve to any degree of success it would be a huge help to have a good quality cross platform tool.  Also, one has to consider that if it is successful the architecture should allow the development of all the fine plugins and tools of the likes we see at mozdev.org.

I'm going to join the list and see what happens.  I got involved in the mozilla lists in the beginning, when no one was working on the CSS component of the engine, and I questioned how they were going to proceed without addressing that issue.  The reply was that no one had put their hand up at that time to develop it and asked would I like too.  I had to decline because of time and very rusty C skills... but look what happened over time, pretty darn good results.  Maybe similar is possible with NVU, but it will at least take some help, input and feedback.

Geoff

  -----Original Message-----
  From: John Colby [mailto:John.Colby@uce.ac.uk]
  Sent: Thursday, 17 June 2004 1:47 PM
  To: Geoff Deering; sdale@stevendale.com
  Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
  Subject: RE: NVU, child of Mozilla Composer (Windows & Linux)


  From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org on behalf of Geoff Deering 
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Steven Dale
  > Would building on top of Mozilla Composer be worth it?  I mean for
  > accessibility?  Would the features that could benefit accessible design
  > authoring be easily integrated?   Just a couple quick questions.  I think
  > if we as a group get involved, it may help promote acceptance and
  > inclusion of the accessible authoring features in proprietary tools.
  >
  > -Steve

  > Agree

  Looking at the NVu situation pragmatically, if a tool is let alone to develop *without* accessibility functions then that tool is going to be limited in its market anyway, so to be in on the ground floor of development would be a definite benefit. I've used it in the pervious version to build a couple of pages (v 0.2), and it has potential, not least in the inclusion of a site mapping function. This iast is the only thing I use any form of Dreamweaver for - so releasing from the necessity of using such a tool would be a definiate benefit.
  We here (UCE School of Computing and Information) have finally been able to dump Frontpage - the last people to use it have rewritten their material - so a tool like this has potential.

  OK NVu is under development - and needs work, but what doesn't - but if a truly accessible authoring tool were to come from this then it will be well worth it.

  (OK, back to bed now - just checking email while the dogs wanted to go out - don't normally work at this time of the morning)

  John