I remember when we didn't have numpad commander, I got so used to using 
control-option that I was trying to do it in jaws.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Arrigo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS X by 
theblind" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: webkit


I also am a big num pad commander fan. I rarely need to use a control
option key stroke, and I don't mind doing it the few times it's
needed. If you have a full keyboard, this will improve the voice over
experience greatly.
On Nov 15, 2008, at 5:16 PM, David Poehlman wrote:

> Something I left out is that numpad commander is the best solution I
> have
> found to meet this need.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Poehlman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS
> Xby
> theblind" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 6:08 PM
> Subject: Re: webkit
>
>
> Dave,
>
> the point I was trying to make is that when voiceover was being
> developped,
> one key was found to be problematic.  take for instance, the window
> eyes
> approach, you have one key, I think it is either alt or control by
> default,
> you end up having to press this key twice to gets its jnormal
> function.
> Jaws usees the insert key on a keyboard that has one and this key
> isn't used
> for much of anything else so that at least is a better solution.
> you can
> remap either the window eyes key, the zoomtext keys or the jaws key,
> but to
> what?  On a laptop, the jaws key defaults to the capslock key and
> presents
> the same issue of having to press it twice to get its normal function.
>
> I'm not opposed to remappable keys but just wonder how it would be
> done
> without having to sacrifice functionality or causing other issues.
>
> comtrol option is rarely used for anything and it can usually be
> gotten
> around or fixed in apps where it is used so seems to be the best
> approach.
> If you have anumpad as has already been pointed out, you can use
> single
> numpad keys to perform most if not all vo functions.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Truong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac
> OS Xby
> theblind'" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 5:46 PM
> Subject: RE: webkit
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I'd use any suitable key as long as it was just 1 key rather than 2
> smile.
> But I like Jacobs idea of having commands configurable along with
> the vo key
> / keys being able to be remapped.  Mike's solution of the NumPad
> commander
> does help though.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
> Poehlman
> Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2008 1:26 AM
> To: General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS
> Xby
> theblind
> Subject: Re: webkit
>
> think about this, what key would you use?  we are not activating
> screen
> reader commands, we are using the "screen reader".
>
> The virtual buffer in windows and I said so at the time is the
> stupidest
> thing I have ever seen in access technology and it is now coming
> back to
> haunt developers in a bit way.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Truong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac
> OS Xby
> theblind'" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 12:11 AM
> Subject: RE: webkit
>
>
> I truly think Voice-over should change the vo-keys to be vo-key.  To
> me it's
> ridiculous to have to press two keys before you've even pressed
> another key
> making it 3 just to activate a screen reading command.  Ah well, you
> guys
> have gotten use to other such stupidities before.  So I guess I'll
> have to
> as well if I want to use the mac smile.  Please don't flame me as I
> still
> love my mac pro smile.  But I just hate having to press more keys
> than I
> should.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jacob Schmude
> Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2008 11:04 AM
> To: General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS
> X by
> theblind
> Subject: Re: webkit
>
> Hi Esther
> Actually ,they do work, but there as been a change in the Webkit code
> base. For access keys, you must now press ctrl+option and the letter.
> Needless to say this is annoying as all get out, as it interferes with
> just about every Voiceover key combination around.
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2008, at 19:58, Esther wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Yes, if you start up WebKit it will look as though Safari is
>> running, except that things like VO-Shift-M on Web page links will
>> bring up the contextual menu and other such fixes.  You really are
>> running Safari, but the underlying engine powering it has some
>> fixes.  On the slightly negative side (for me), the access keys for
>> the Mail Archive site for this list at:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>>
>> don't work under WebKit right now, so I can't use Control-I to shift
>> the list of posts to a set of links indexed by date, and Control-C
>> to shift the listing back to links ordered by content into threads.
>> (Or navigate through threads to read the next post with Control-n
>> and the previous post with Control-p; or use the analogous commands
>> of Control-f and Control-b to move forwards or back by date).  This
>> went away in September, but the fix will appear in an upcoming
>> WebKit build.  Until then, I fire up Safari to read and search the
>> Mailing List archives for this list, but use WebKit for most
>> everything else web-related.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Esther
>>
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Mike Arrigo wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone. I decided to give the latest nightly build of web kit
>>> a try, one thing I noticed, when running the webkit application, it
>>> shows as safari, and even calls itself safari 3.1, is safari still
>>> loading but using the newer web kit engine instead? So far, it's
>>> working really well.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Reply via email to