On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Christian Bryant <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:christianabryant@linux.com">christianabryant@linux.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
I'm curious, is there a comprehensive requirements and/or design<br>
document for Sugar against which the recommendation is measured? I'd<br>
be curious to see a "gap analysis" that supports the argument to not<br>
use Python. If nothing else, I'd vote for a solid wiki page that can<br>
properly frame the idea, and the pros and cons.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would also be interested in seeing an thorough experience report from someone who has attempted to use Sugar on a touchscreen device. We already know that several major features (such as the frame and hover menus) fail completely. Bert tested EToys on a touchscreen a few months ago and found lots of areas that needed work (search devel@ for that thread). Like you say, a comprehensive outline of the work required would certainly help give a realistic appraisal of the current "state of Sugar".</div>
<div><br></div><div>Or you could decide that Sugar-on-a-touchscreen just isn't interesting/isn't part of SugarLab's mission. That would put a big fork between Sugar's work and OLPC's work, since OLPC is committed (via its funding source) to producing a touchscreen machine in its next generation. It then becomes even more important to have Sugar running well on non-OLPC hardware. Wiki pages detailing the progress of other "Sugar everywhere" efforts on non-OLPC machines would also help appraise the current state of the world. [These are much further advanced than Sugar-on-touchscreen, AFAIK, but I'm been assuming that SugarLabs doesn't want to allow itself to grow completely apart from the OLPC hardware effort. Perhaps my assumption is misguided.]</div>
<div> --scott</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br> ( <a href="http://cscott.net/">http://cscott.net/</a> ) <br>