Let's hear it for JAWS!!!!!!!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginny Quick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, March 22, 1999 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fwd: A comparative review of Windoweyes and JFW's

>Hi, all.  I've used Window Eyes with IE 4.0.  And another problem I've
>encountered is that sometimes, with some web pages, the computer locks up
>when trying to load the page using the MSAA buffer.  The computer I was
>using was a gateway Penteum 200.  I do not have the problem with pages
>locking up with JFW.  Not to mention the fact that the pages load much
>faster with JFW than they do when using Window-Eyes with MSAA.
>At 07:07 AM 3/22/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>I don't want to get into the "my screen reader is better" debate and JFW is
>>my personal screen reader of choice.  Having explored Window-Eyes
>>extensively, I can say that while the MSAA mode makes reading long articles
>>or web pages a bit easier, it isn't all some are cracking it up to be.
>>First of all, it imposes a lengthy delay on the loading of a web page as it
>>must be loaded into this MSAA buffer.  On many pages like the New York
>>Times, CNN and such, this frequently takes 5 to 8 seconds on my Pentium 300.
>>Second, if your web page has controls like edit boxes, check boxes and
>>alike you have to disable MSAA mode to actually change the status of the
>>control or enter information.  Window-Eyes dos this automatically when you
>>press enter on the control but you must then turn on MSAA again and wait
>>for the page to load into the buffer.
>>I have found that JFW's ctrl-page down for reading web pages with the
>>reformat option works pretty well.
>>At 01:31 PM 3/22/99 +1200, you wrote:
>>>There has been quite a bit of publicity from the various vendors of screen
>>>readers on the subject of Active Accessibility.  GW Micro decided to stick
>>>with it, and I guess where Microsoft has implemented it properly it means
>>>that WindowEyes and other screen readers that have invested in MSAA are
>>>ahead.  It would sure be nice to read internet pages in a proper edit box,
>>>but really, once you're used to using the JAWS cursor, and you reformat
>>>difficult pages, I think IE 4 certainly works quite well with JFW.  I'm not
>>>saying it works as well as IE 5 does with WindowEyes.
>>>But there's also more to life than the internet.  There's a lot of stuff
>>>that JFW works very well with and maybe in most cases it still out performs
>>>WindowEyes.  Think about braille for instance.  I think, stick with JFW in
>>>the meantime.
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Les Kriegler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>>Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 12:23 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fwd: A comparative review of Windoweyes and JFW's
>>>Hi David,
>>>Keep in mind that as a new release of a screen reader comes out, it may
>>>leap frog the competition for a while.  Let's see how well JFW 3.3 works
>>>with IE5, and then I think some conclusions can be drawn.  This isn't
>>>taking anything away from Window-Eyes; it's great that it apparently works
>>>well in IE5; it didn't in IE4, particularly in the extremely slow response
>>>to loading of pages, and that point was acknowledged by GW Micro.  I'm
>>>confident that JFW will work very well with IE5.  Notice that HJ states
>>>that they do not officially support IE5 yet.  That, to me is significant.
>>>Best Regards,
>>>Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
>>>Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
>>Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
>If you would like to contact me using ICQ, my number is 24669268.
>You can also visit me on the web at: http://www.public.usit.net/gmquick
>Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net

Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net

Reply via email to