Board of Directors Meeting 2020-10-23

Board Discuss
#1

The Document Foundation
Board of Directors Meeting 2020-10-23
Meeting Minutes

Location: Jitsi

Session chair: Lothar Becker
Keeper of the minutes: Stephan Ficht

In the meeting:
     Board - Lothar Becker, Daniel Rodriguez, Emiliano Vavassori, Cor Nouws, Michael Meeks, Thorsten Behrens (from 13:10 on)
     Board Deputies - Paolo Vecchi, Nicolas Christener
     Team - Stephan Ficht, Florian Effenberger, Sophie Gautier, Olivier Hallot, Heiko Tietze (from 13:19 on)
     Community - Michael Weghorn

Representation: Nicolas Christener for Franklin Weng
(See https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ subject "Representation statements")

Chairman of the Board is in the meeting. One of the Chairman or Deputy Chairman is required to be present or represented for having a quorate call.

The Board of Directors at time of the call consists of 7 seat holders without deputies. In order to be quorate, the call needs to have 1/2 of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 7 Board of Directors members are attending the call.

The board waives all formal statutory requirements, or requirements in the foundations articles, or other requirements regarding form and invitation, time limits, and for the topics discussed in this meeting.

The meeting is quorate and invitation happened in time. From now on, motions can be passed with the agreement of a simple majority of those remaining present. The majority threshold is currently 4.

The meeting commences at 13:04 Berlin time.

Public part

1. Q&A: Answering Questions from the community (All, max. 10 min)
    Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask questions to the board and about TDF.
    * Olivier: Discussion about dropping LibreOffice Online from the foundation.
      * Am not in favor of this. LOOL code, documentation, wiki pages etc. are assets of the foundation.
      * As such, foundation is custodian of the content, should neither erase nor drop existing contents.
      * Understands decision is way beyond the board.
      * All these assets contain energy of members and constituents of the foundation.
      * Begs to not delete, drop or erase any contents of LibreOffice Online.

2. Discuss: Focussing and prioritizing, sorting goals and action items for the board in the light of LibO Con meetings (Lothar/Florian, All 20min)
    Rationale: Answering questions, discuss situation, suggest further steps with it, suggestion was: identify 5 most important and fokus energy/time on them and to bring them first to results, rest on hold until new weighting (after 6 weeks)
    * Lothar: Need to have all items on the lists that are urgent or important or both.
      * Running tenders should not be on the list, it's clear that they need to be worked on. ODF delta is published, X-ray in evaluation, so is dev mentor.
      * No explicit results expected in the next weeks.
      * Nobody hindered to work on any item, but it's in not in top priority all board and other resources should be invested into that.
      * Not doing everything at the same time.
      * Organize our resources, have common understanding what's next and what comes after that.
      * First step - what is missing from this list?

    Topics sorted alphabetically:
    (Updated during this call, so changed since LibOCon meeting)

    * Accessibility
    * Advisory board and cooperation
    * Business entity
     * App stores
     * Commercial activities
    * Capital investment
    * Communication hints and rules for international audience
    * Community bylaws
    * Tooling: Community participation, tools for developers
      * has to be balanced against cost of change (Thorsten)
      * migration done in single steps, e.g. Easy Hacks? (Paolo)
      * should be driven by developers and new dev mentor (Thorsten)
      * support this (Michael)
      * goal is also to get new contributors, some might find current tooling complicated (Paolo)
    * Conflict of interest and tenders
    * Diversity and inclusion
    * Education, universities and schools
    * Events, conferences, LibOCon 2021 and Hackfests, physical and virtual
    * LibreOffice Online
    * LibreOffice Mobile (Android and iOS)
    * Marketing plan and growth and diversification of the ecosystem
    * Next next decade manifesto
    * Public sector: activities with e.g. Kiel, Dortmund or Treuchtlingen
    * Trademark policy, branding, OpenOffice brand

* Lothar: Any urgent item not on this list?
   * Goal is to have a ranking/priorities in the end, to focus resources and engagement to.
   * Nobody hintered to work on other topics, but board's top priority should go on what's ranked.
   * Emiliano: Can we use something similar as for tender ranking?
   * Lothar: Can we re-use that, make it 1-15?
   * Michael: Agree, don't make it too complicated.
* AI Florian: put items in a spreadsheet by Monday (to factor changes in), circulate for ranking, to be ranked within the next week.

Agenda items of Private part

3. Inform & Discuss: wealth management for foundation capital stock, evaluating meeting, proposal from Stephan, further steps (Stephan/Florian, Lothar, board members 10min)
    Reason why in private: confidential information about finance decision making
    Rational: evaluation and further steps

4. Last-minute: LibOCon update (Florian)

5. Last-minute: LOOL discussion (Thorsten)

Private meeting ends at 14:03 Berlin time.

Lothar Becker (Session chair)
Stephan Ficht (Keeper of the minutes)

#2

Florian,

Was there any discussion about accessibility and if so, did anything come out of it?

Quentin.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 9:45 PM Florian Effenberger <floeff@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

The Document Foundation
Board of Directors Meeting 2020-10-23
Meeting Minutes

Date: 2020-10-23
Location: Jitsi

Session chair: Lothar Becker
Keeper of the minutes: Stephan Ficht

In the meeting:
Board - Lothar Becker, Daniel Rodriguez, Emiliano Vavassori, Cor
Nouws, Michael Meeks, Thorsten Behrens (from 13:10 on)
Board Deputies - Paolo Vecchi, Nicolas Christener
Team - Stephan Ficht, Florian Effenberger, Sophie Gautier, Olivier
Hallot, Heiko Tietze (from 13:19 on)
Community - Michael Weghorn

Representation: Nicolas Christener for Franklin Weng
(See https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
subject “Representation statements”)

Chairman of the Board is in the meeting. One of the Chairman or Deputy
Chairman is required to be present or represented for having a quorate call.

The Board of Directors at time of the call consists of 7 seat holders
without deputies. In order to be quorate, the call needs to have 1/2 of
the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 7 Board of
Directors members are attending the call.

The board waives all formal statutory requirements, or requirements in
the foundations articles, or other requirements regarding form and
invitation, time limits, and for the topics discussed in this meeting.

The meeting is quorate and invitation happened in time. From now on,
motions can be passed with the agreement of a simple majority of those
remaining present. The majority threshold is currently 4.

The meeting commences at 13:04 Berlin time.

Public part

  1. Q&A: Answering Questions from the community (All, max. 10 min)
    Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask questions
    to the board and about TDF.
  • Olivier: Discussion about dropping LibreOffice Online from the
    foundation.
  • Am not in favor of this. LOOL code, documentation, wiki pages
    etc. are assets of the foundation.
  • As such, foundation is custodian of the content, should neither
    erase nor drop existing contents.
  • Understands decision is way beyond the board.
  • All these assets contain energy of members and constituents of
    the foundation.
  • Begs to not delete, drop or erase any contents of LibreOffice
    Online.
  1. Discuss: Focussing and prioritizing, sorting goals and action items
    for the board in the light of LibO Con meetings (Lothar/Florian, All 20min)
    Rationale: Answering questions, discuss situation, suggest further
    steps with it, suggestion was: identify 5 most important and fokus
    energy/time on them and to bring them first to results, rest on hold
    until new weighting (after 6 weeks)
  • Lothar: Need to have all items on the lists that are urgent or
    important or both.
  • Running tenders should not be on the list, it’s clear that they
    need to be worked on. ODF delta is published, X-ray in evaluation, so is
    dev mentor.
  • No explicit results expected in the next weeks.
  • Nobody hindered to work on any item, but it’s in not in top
    priority all board and other resources should be invested into that.
  • Not doing everything at the same time.
  • Organize our resources, have common understanding what’s next
    and what comes after that.
  • First step - what is missing from this list?

Topics sorted alphabetically:
(Updated during this call, so changed since LibOCon meeting)

  • Accessibility

  • Advisory board and cooperation

  • Business entity

  • App stores

  • Commercial activities

  • Capital investment

  • Communication hints and rules for international audience

  • Community bylaws

  • Tooling: Community participation, tools for developers

  • has to be balanced against cost of change (Thorsten)

  • migration done in single steps, e.g. Easy Hacks? (Paolo)

  • should be driven by developers and new dev mentor (Thorsten)

  • support this (Michael)

  • goal is also to get new contributors, some might find current
    tooling complicated (Paolo)

  • Conflict of interest and tenders

  • Diversity and inclusion

  • Education, universities and schools

  • Events, conferences, LibOCon 2021 and Hackfests, physical and virtual

  • LibreOffice Online

  • LibreOffice Mobile (Android and iOS)

  • Marketing plan and growth and diversification of the ecosystem

  • Next next decade manifesto

  • Public sector: activities with e.g. Kiel, Dortmund or Treuchtlingen

  • Trademark policy, branding, OpenOffice brand

  • Lothar: Any urgent item not on this list?

  • Goal is to have a ranking/priorities in the end, to focus resources
    and engagement to.

  • Nobody hintered to work on other topics, but board’s top priority
    should go on what’s ranked.

  • Emiliano: Can we use something similar as for tender ranking?

  • Lothar: Can we re-use that, make it 1-15?

  • Michael: Agree, don’t make it too complicated.

  • AI Florian: put items in a spreadsheet by Monday (to factor changes
    in), circulate for ranking, to be ranked within the next week.

Agenda items of Private part

  1. Inform & Discuss: wealth management for foundation capital stock,
    evaluating meeting, proposal from Stephan, further steps
    (Stephan/Florian, Lothar, board members 10min)
    Reason why in private: confidential information about finance
    decision making
    Rational: evaluation and further steps

  2. Last-minute: LibOCon update (Florian)

  3. Last-minute: LOOL discussion (Thorsten)

Private meeting ends at 14:03 Berlin time.

Lothar Becker (Session chair)
Stephan Ficht (Keeper of the minutes)

–
Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer)
Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail: floeff@documentfoundation.org
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint

–
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

–

#3

Hi Quentin,

Quentin Christensen wrote:

Was there any discussion about accessibility and if so, did anything come out of it?

there was no separate discussion about accessibility. It is one of the topics the board has in their ranking, to determine the importance/priority of the topic - but we didn't discuss it in detail.

Florian

#4

Thanks Florian,

Given the increasing use of open source software such as Libre Office in government and corporate use, it is disappointing it isn’t more of a priority. Not being accessible does explicitly exclude LIbre Office from most government use for instance. I understand the difficulties with not having any paid developers you can direct to do particular work, but it does make the product specifically impossible to use for large segments of potential users.

I wonder how other FLOSS projects handle this?

Kind regards

Quentin.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 5:59 PM Florian Effenberger <floeff@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

Hi Quentin,

Quentin Christensen wrote:

Was there any discussion about accessibility and if so, did anything
come out of it?

there was no separate discussion about accessibility. It is one of the
topics the board has in their ranking, to determine the
importance/priority of the topic - but we didn’t discuss it in detail.

Florian

–

#5

Thanks Florian,

Given the increasing use of open source software such as Libre Office in
government and corporate use, it is disappointing it isn't more of a
priority. Not being accessible does explicitly exclude LIbre Office from
most government use for instance.

Yes

   I understand the difficulties with not
having any paid developers you can direct to do particular work, but it
does make the product specifically impossible to use for large segments of
potential users.

There are multiple factors at work I assume
- They group of users of accessibility (no-offense) is relatively small.
With less of incentives (getting different at the point being a pre-requirement for governments/NGO)

- Most/All Developers themselves don't use accessibility (I speculate)

- There are not many people at QA/UX who have knowledge about (or use) accessibility tools structurally (I assume)
And if they do they might have the actual handicap (so paying less attention to the stuff being a problem)

- There or not many reports of accessibility bugs (I think)

- LibreOffice being in principle being developed by Selling Developer Time (instead of final 'product' with certain functionality)
And there is no centralized organization paying. So this tends to put on hold.

I'm personally and advocate for more bug fixing (or in general quality control). Nobody is inclined to pay for solving bugs.
Everybody expects someone else will do. Or work around it. Hurting the general user experience.
In my vision there needs to be an upfront investment (financed by eco-partners) with a (substantial) higher product price,
to make returns on investment. This would also make it possible to embed some kind of solidarity. The revenue - payed by all users - can be used to
serve a niche (accessibility). Instead of a niche having to pay to full price; which doesn't make sense for the broad audience.

Same hold true for bug fixing. About bug XYZ a user ABC might not care but D does. So not likely to get solved.
Or D has to pay. However, nobody actually knows if there is only 'D' or a bug is simply under reported. People try LibreOffice,
notice it fails on their needs, and move on.

However they approach is for developers more easy to manage. Investing in advance has a risk of failure,
if you don't estimate the desires from users properly. So you make no return at all.
And you gets of debates/arguments about priority's. What should we do next.. And everybody will come up with something.
Having different accents/visions. Say there is a budget for fixing 100 paper cut bugs and lets say we have 3000 of those.
File Export has multiple flaws. A single paper cut bug fix, still leaves a broken feature. So pretty pointless. To make worth the effort 5 needs to fixed.
But who uses File Export. Why File Export and not 5 accessibility bugs. But there 100 accessibility bugs; which should have priority

I wonder how other FLOSS projects handle this?

Me too. It sounds like it's functioning there? Any examples?

Kind regards

Quentin.

Hi Quentin,

Quentin Christensen wrote:

Was there any discussion about accessibility and if so, did anything
come out of it?

there was no separate discussion about accessibility. It is one of the
topics the board has in their ranking, to determine the
importance/priority of the topic - but we didn't discuss it in detail.

Florian

Regards,
Telesto

#6

Hi Quentin,

Quentin Christensen wrote:

Given the increasing use of open source software such as Libre Office in government and corporate use, it is disappointing it isn't more of a priority.  Not being accessible does explicitly exclude LIbre Office

at the moment, the board is evaluating the priorities, so nothing is decided yet. :slight_smile: The list shows the various topics on the table, out of which the decision for the final priorities will be made. The goal is to have that done within the next two weeks.

Florian

#7

Accessibility is and was always in our focus [1,2]. For example, TDF tendered
the accessibility checker [3], and every build tests now changes to the UI
against a11y basics [4].

What exactly are you missing? We have 190 tickets with the keyword in our
bugtracker [5], but not all are crucial. You are very welcome to keep an eye on
these issues and discuss it with the design team [6] and the developers.

[1] https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/accessibility/
[2] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Accessibility/Accessibility-dev
[3]
https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2018/05/07/welcome-gla11y-the-user-interface-accessibility-checker/
[4] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Accessibility
[5]
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?keywords=accessibility&resolution=---
[6] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design

#8

Hi Quentin,

Over the last 20 years I have spent quite a bit of energy on the matter of accessibility in openoffice.org so let’s consider your request in that light.

Background

Accessibility is undeniably important, and LibreOffice already includes the results of large amounts of work by a variety of people to make it accessible to people with a variety of different needs. This work has been done by different people with different affiliations over the years. It has required skills, equipment and experience that are all specialised. It would not be correct to assert that LibreOffice has neglected the needs of those requiring specific accessibility accommodations. However, the need is huge and there are always more needs that could be addressed, especially maintaining the work that has already been done.

LibreOffice is not written or maintained by TDF, despite all the materials that might give you that impression. It is written by diverse individuals with diverse motivations, many of them associated with employment. Almost all of the significant additions to LibreOffice are made by developers working for companies with a commercial interest in LibreOffice-derived service, support and products. TDF’s Board cannot give any of them instructions to address any particular development need. The most they can do is make a budget allocation to have work done, and when that happens it needs to be openly tendered. Those tenders remain a controversial topic for the Board as you will see from the minutes.

Your Request

To the matter of NVAccess. To have the accessibility capabilities your organisation maintains integrated into LibreOffice is not within the direct power of TDF’s Board. They could however approve a detailed, costed work proposal and then open a tender to have it satisfied by developers with the appropriate skills. From looking at https://www.nvaccess.org/ it seems the people most likely to be able to create that proposal are actually staff and volunteers for the charity you represent.

May I thus suggest that your energy would be better spent trying to create that costed and detailed proposal for the Board to approve? If you need help with the format or structure needed, it is likely a member of the Engineering Steering Committee (which is actually the council of core developers) would assist you, or failing that I am sure Florian would direct you to resources if you asked him. I am no longer a Board member, but I would expect your proposal to be received positively. This approach will lead to an outcome; asking the Board to discuss accessibility in general terms will not :slight_smile:

I hope that helps.

Best regards,

Simon

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 7:30 AM Quentin Christensen <quentin@nvaccess.org> wrote:

Thanks Florian,

Given the increasing use of open source software such as Libre Office in government and corporate use, it is disappointing it isn’t more of a priority. Not being accessible does explicitly exclude LIbre Office from most government use for instance. I understand the difficulties with not having any paid developers you can direct to do particular work, but it does make the product specifically impossible to use for large segments of potential users.

I wonder how other FLOSS projects handle this?

Kind regards

Quentin.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 5:59 PM Florian Effenberger <floeff@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

Hi Quentin,

Quentin Christensen wrote:

Was there any discussion about accessibility and if so, did anything
come out of it?

there was no separate discussion about accessibility. It is one of the
topics the board has in their ranking, to determine the
importance/priority of the topic - but we didn’t discuss it in detail.

Florian

–

Quentin Christensen
Training and Support Manager

Web: www.nvaccess.org

Training: https://www.nvaccess.org/shop/
Certification: https://certification.nvaccess.org/
User group: https://nvda.groups.io/g/nvda
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess
Twitter: @NVAccess

–

#9

Hi everyone,

Thank you very much for all the constructive comments. Firstly, I should apologise if I came across as being attacking yesterday. It’s really just frustration that previously it’s been very hard to get to talk to anyone about accessibility issues in LibreOffice.

I must admit I will have to go back and have a look at the current state of issues with LibreOffice 7 and NVDA 2020.3. I started to compile information a few years ago and ensure all issues I knew about were filed, but as it was a bit of a black hole at the time, and NV Access developers didn’t have the resources to work on LibreOffice as well as NVDA, it got set aside from our end. I will talk with the team about putting forward a proposal to the board, thank you Simon for that suggestion!

And of course, issues do need to be prioritised - and as with any area, just because something may be an accessibility issue, doesn’t mean it is critical, and some have workarounds which can be used in the meantime. But many accessibility issues do mean a feature, or even entire product is completely unusable to a particular group of people. They may then not report that but instead find an alternative product. If you can use a product, but one feature is a bit buggy, you are more likely to report that issue, than if the whole product is unusable (to you), particularly if you aren’t familiar with Bugzilla, a screenreader user is much more likely to be apprehensive that even trying to report the issue is going to be too hard. (I know we have NVDA users who use Bugzilla, but for those not familiar with it, that would certainly be a consideration a screenreader user thinks of that a sighted user wouldn’t necessarily worry about).

Telesto’s comment that developers aren’t familiar with accessibility tools is entirely accurate, and I think demonstrative of a core problem in training of software developers - completely outside the scope of this conversation and what any of us has control over - but if an architect designed a big public building without a wheelchair accessible entrance, they would quickly find themselves out of work. Why? Are there so many people in wheelchairs? No - but actually mothers with prams, people with suitcases, an athletic 20 year old who hurt their leg playing football last week, and numerous others, all benefit from that wheelchair accessible entrance. The same is true for “accessibility” features in software. Everyone I have heard of who has purchased a computer in recent years with a half decent video card has taken advantage of accessibility features - video card manufacturers want you to use their video card at the maximum resolution - yet that makes everything tiny, so everyone either uses the “Make everything bigger” feature (in Windows) to set the value higher than 100%, or increase font size, or make the mouse a bit bigger. Of course, one of the main reasons that public buildings HAVE to have a wheelchair accessible entrance, is because legislation in most jurisdictions require it. That is starting to happen with software, but slowly.

Thank you for the positive dialog - and again, I am looking forward to engaging positively on how we can work together.

Quentin

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:20 PM Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:

Hi Quentin,

Over the last 20 years I have spent quite a bit of energy on the matter of accessibility in openoffice.org so let’s consider your request in that light.

Background

Accessibility is undeniably important, and LibreOffice already includes the results of large amounts of work by a variety of people to make it accessible to people with a variety of different needs. This work has been done by different people with different affiliations over the years. It has required skills, equipment and experience that are all specialised. It would not be correct to assert that LibreOffice has neglected the needs of those requiring specific accessibility accommodations. However, the need is huge and there are always more needs that could be addressed, especially maintaining the work that has already been done.

LibreOffice is not written or maintained by TDF, despite all the materials that might give you that impression. It is written by diverse individuals with diverse motivations, many of them associated with employment. Almost all of the significant additions to LibreOffice are made by developers working for companies with a commercial interest in LibreOffice-derived service, support and products. TDF’s Board cannot give any of them instructions to address any particular development need. The most they can do is make a budget allocation to have work done, and when that happens it needs to be openly tendered. Those tenders remain a controversial topic for the Board as you will see from the minutes.

Your Request

To the matter of NVAccess. To have the accessibility capabilities your organisation maintains integrated into LibreOffice is not within the direct power of TDF’s Board. They could however approve a detailed, costed work proposal and then open a tender to have it satisfied by developers with the appropriate skills. From looking at https://www.nvaccess.org/ it seems the people most likely to be able to create that proposal are actually staff and volunteers for the charity you represent.

May I thus suggest that your energy would be better spent trying to create that costed and detailed proposal for the Board to approve? If you need help with the format or structure needed, it is likely a member of the Engineering Steering Committee (which is actually the council of core developers) would assist you, or failing that I am sure Florian would direct you to resources if you asked him. I am no longer a Board member, but I would expect your proposal to be received positively. This approach will lead to an outcome; asking the Board to discuss accessibility in general terms will not :slight_smile:

I hope that helps.

Best regards,

Simon

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 7:30 AM Quentin Christensen <quentin@nvaccess.org> wrote:

Thanks Florian,

Given the increasing use of open source software such as Libre Office in government and corporate use, it is disappointing it isn’t more of a priority. Not being accessible does explicitly exclude LIbre Office from most government use for instance. I understand the difficulties with not having any paid developers you can direct to do particular work, but it does make the product specifically impossible to use for large segments of potential users.

I wonder how other FLOSS projects handle this?

Kind regards

Quentin.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 5:59 PM Florian Effenberger <floeff@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

Hi Quentin,

Quentin Christensen wrote:

Was there any discussion about accessibility and if so, did anything
come out of it?

there was no separate discussion about accessibility. It is one of the
topics the board has in their ranking, to determine the
importance/priority of the topic - but we didn’t discuss it in detail.

Florian

–

Quentin Christensen
Training and Support Manager

Web: www.nvaccess.org

Training: https://www.nvaccess.org/shop/
Certification: https://certification.nvaccess.org/
User group: https://nvda.groups.io/g/nvda
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess
Twitter: @NVAccess

–

Simon Phipps

Office: +1 (415) 683-7660 or +44 (238) 098 7027

–

#10

Hi Quentin,

I must admit I will have to go back and have a look at the current state
of issues with LibreOffice 7 and NVDA 2020.3.

  If you can come up with a list of prioritized / bucketed a11y issues -
we can try to estimate what it costs to fix them to get some work funded
here.

  I was personally slightly sad to see though that the last tasks we
proposed here didn't make it through the ranking to get tendered. But
always worth trying again.

  ATB,

    Michael.

#11

Not knowing anything about accessibility [so no clue if it's relevant], but these tickets a recently added to they bug tracker

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137954 Include odt2braille as a feature in LibreOffice
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137953 Include odt2daisy as a feature in LibreOffice

#12

These reports are not related to the accessibility of the user interface. Please use this query to keep track of a11y reports:
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?keywords=accessibility%2C%20&keywords_type=allwords&list_id=1223558&query_format=advanced&resolution=---

Ilmari

Telesto kirjoitti 3.11.2020 klo 17.35:

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.