Review 2026.1 changelog/documentation changes#19319
Conversation
|
The API-breaking changes and Deprecation sections are quite big. I wonder if there would be a way to reorganize them, e.g.:
Just a question, I have no strong requirement nor suggestion on this. |
|
Also, I do not know if it should land in this PR. But the release blurb is incomplete. |
Co-authored-by: Sean Budd <sean@nvaccess.org>
# Conflicts: # user_docs/en/changes.md
Co-authored-by: Sean Budd <sean@nvaccess.org>
# Conflicts: # user_docs/en/changes.md
I thought about creating two tables:
However I don't think we've done anything like that in our changes files before, and I'm not sure how easy folks would find it to read.
This could also work.
I don't think this is practical. Many of the changes are quite broad. Regardless, I think if we do decide to do this, it is probably fine to be done in a subsequent PR. @seanbudd what do you think? |
|
I would avoid making major reworks to the changes file in a separate PR. I think we should try to get it roughly right in the first beta as it's our signal to add-on to devs (and translators) to start work. |
Can you clarify what you mean by this? Cyrille proposed 4 lists. I proposed 2 tables. |
|
I'm proposing 4 tables based on Cyrille categories and your formatting |
|
@seanbudd can you explain further what you mean? What would be the point of using my tables (which include suggested replacements) for symbols removed/deprecated with no replacement? |
|
cleaner formatting and more consistent navigation? |
|
I've just spent a while trying to reformat the changes for developers in a way that remains readable and keeps all the essential information, and I can't come up with anything that is consistent and better than what we've already goot. @seanbudd can I merge this without rewriting the changes for devs? |
Yes, no need to spend more time on this. |
Related to #19053 Related to #19298 ### Summary of the issue: The on-device AI image descriptions introduced into NVDA tend to experience halucinations, especially when used on material other than photographs. ### Description of user facing changes: * Descriptions retrieved with this feature are now prefixed with "Could be" * The settings and temporary enable dialogs now warn the user that the feature is experimental and not to use it in high-stakes situations * The User Guide includes a slightly longer disclaimer about the feature ### Description of developer facing changes: None ### Description of development approach: Used a template string when outputting the AI slop so that a hedge-phrase can be used. Wrote up a warning message for the user guide. Shortened it slightly and inserted into the settings panel and temporary enable dialog. I have not updated `changes.md`, as that would just create merge conflicts. I will do it in #19319. ### Testing strategy: Ran NVDA. Checked that the settings panel speaks the warning and that the warning is visible. Checked that the warning is shown in the temp enable dialog. ### Known issues with pull request: Doesn't address the underlying issue. The language used for this feature also seems confusing and inconsistent, but that is out of scope for this issue.
Must be a squash merge
Changes from this PR to the previous release:
user_docs/en/userGuide.md,user_docs/en/changes.mddeveloperGuide.mdgit diff release-2025.3.2...docsFor2026.1 -- "**/en/*.md" "**/developerGuide.md"Common mistakes to check for:
NVDA+d)^ ( )*\*)[^ ])')