[Accessibility-testing] Notes & minutes of the April 30, 2018 meeting
jmac at jmac.org
Tue May 1 14:05:41 EDT 2018
Yes, I’m always going to answer “no” to “Do you want to take on double the work”?
That said, I’d like to add Frotz to the interpreter list if it does play Glulx. I admit I’m a little confused by this. I based my Zcode-only assumption on the text at https://github.com/DavidGriffith/frotz, which mentions the Z-machine but not Glulx — and if you search that Github repository for “glulx” you get only three hits, one of which is a command to print an error message apologizing for not supporting Glulx. So uhhhh I’m not sure. :)
> On May 1, 2018, at 12:25 PM, deborah.kaplan at suberic.net wrote:
> I'm comfortable constraining the first round of testing. If Zarf says
> that it would double the work, that seems like a good reason to put
> another constraint on what we are testing in the first pass. Maybe the
> second pass can include ZCode and Choice of Games.
> On Tue, 1 May 2018, Zachary Kline wrote:
>> I most definitely use iOS frotz for both ZCode and Glulx games. I’m not in any position to say whether we should include ZCode support in the first round, though. :)
>>> On May 1, 2018, at 8:36 AM, Andrew Plotkin <erkyrath at eblong.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 May 2018, Jason McIntosh wrote:
>>>> Zack (IIRC) brought up Filfre and Frotz as well, last night. It looks at a glance like Frotz is actively maintained (by David Kinder et al), but Z-code only — would that fit our pattern?
>>> I have assumed that we will only write and test Glulx. Adding Z-code would basically double the work load for the parser part of the project. Do we want to go there?
> Accessibility-testing mailing list
> Accessibility-testing at iftechfoundation.org
More information about the Accessibility-testing