nvaccess
Add support for pactos braille display drivers in to nvda core.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Pactos, witch is an Iranian company that makes braille displays, made an nvda addon that could be used as a driver for all of its' braille displays, but because of the breaking point of the nvda 2024.1 this addon can't be used for these displays.
Describe the solution you'd like
I'd like to see if we could implement the functions of this driver in to the core of the nvda.
Describe alternatives you've considered
If we can not do that, I've created a repository heare that we can work on and port it to python 3.11.
Additional context
Hear is the addon file. pactos-1.0.5_beta.zip
@alireza1385mamani can you please confirm the permissions on the link https://github.com/alireza1385mamani/pactos. It isn't accessible.
@alireza1385mamani have you confirmed that the add-on no longer works in 2024.1? For any add-on in the Installed Add-Ons tab of the Add-On store noted as "Disabled (incompatible)" you have the option in the actions menu for that add-on to "Enable (override incompatibility)."
Is it confirmed that Pactos will no longer update their add-on?
Generally speaking we don't include features in core simply because an add-on developer has stopped maintaining their code. There are several factors that go into that decision. In this case the developer of the add-on should first be encouraged to update their code.
Hear is the public ripository. I've contacted pactos company several times and they didn't answer me at all. That's why I've asumed they don't want to work on it anymore.
I think generally braille display drivers were always a good candidate for the NVDA core. It would ofcourse make totally sense if the vendors themselves contribute directly. there is a wiki article on how to contribute at integrating drivers for braille displays into the core. Maybe you can send this to the vendor as well.
https://github.com/nvaccess/nvda/wiki/AddingSupportForABrailleDisplay
if the company is not responsive, it is indeed tnot a good advertisment for their maintenance strategy.
@Adriani90 You are correct about the fact that a companies responsiveness can effect there reputation, but whenever their is a monopoly in the industry, it becomes broken. I have to contact them on saturday to see what their answer is.
@alireza1385mamani Thanks for updating the link to the respository and contacting the developers. Have you encountered any issues with the driver and confirmed that the add-on no longer works in 2024.1? Whenever we do a 20xx.1 release, many add-ons are listed as incompatible but actually work fine.
@alireza1385mamani Thanks for updating the link to the respository and contacting the developers. Have you encountered any issues with the driver and confirmed that the add-on no longer works in 2024.1? Whenever we do a 20xx.1 release, many add-ons are listed as incompatible but actually work fine.
it is showing as beeing compatible and enabled in the addon store, but it isn't working at all.
The required .dll without source code is going to be a blocker to getting this into core. Given that the add-on source code is available, the best way forward at this point would be to get the add-on working first.
Also, if the add-on is shown as being compatible, who updated it's manifest to 2024.1?
@michaelDCurran - we have some concerns about accepting a close sourced DLL into core, which is possibly a security risk or has incompatible license. any thoughts? otherwise we may need to close this and encourage the community to take on add-on maintenance
