Hello,
I have to respectfully disagree with Ken here on the issue of jfw dos
support. Now, jfw in a dos prompt under windows reads ok, if, and only
if, screen echo is set to all, and the window is a window, and not
fullscreen. This I'm not disputing. Now, I'm assuming that when hj said
dos support they meant that one would not have to use a dos screen reader
in a dos window, because jfw would speak, which as I have stated, is in
fact the case, for a dos prompt. However, try loading an app, like wp51,
or any other dos app and my point will be clear. In this area a dos
screen reader is still very much needed.
Dave.
On Tue, 18 May 1999 10:50:32 -0400 Ken Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello All -
>
> My analysis of Jamal's statements regarding JFW was in no way
> intended as a
> personal attack on the man but merely on his methods. I believe I
> said
> this quite clearly, but if it came across as otherwise, then I
> apologize.
>
> Nevertheless, I stand by my statements. Jamal did not say the price
> of JFW
> was too high, he said it was exorbitant, and that has some very bad
> connotations, indeed. He accused them of misleading marketing which
> is
> libelous without supporting evidence. The two belated examples he
> gave in
> his message below do not prove his point. I don't recall HJ having
> said
> that 3.3 would support Java. But even if they did and later
> discovered
> they couldn't accomplish this task, they have stated quite clearly
> that
> owners of 3.3 will get a free upgrade to 3.31 in a couple of months,
> and
> 3.31 will support Java. That sounds to me like HJ keeping its word,
> not
> practicing deceptive marketing. Also, JFW 3.0 does support does
> applications, even if that support isn't all that some users would
> wish it
> to be. None of this even begins to qualify as misleading marketing.
>
> The problem with Jamal's message is that it was not balanced and was
> not
> presented as opinion. Nowhere in his negative comments did he start
> off by
> saying "In my opinion..." He presented his assertions as facts, and
> he did
> this without supporting evidence. In my opinion, this qualifies his
> statements as utter, unsupported nonsense. Jamal is absolutely
> correct
> that everyone is entitled to express an opinion. But they should
> expect to
> be challenged when they cannot support that opinion with cold, hard
> facts.
> This is what I have done. I'm still waiting for the facts that
> would prove
> me wrong. Until I get them, everything else is pure sophistry.
>
> Here are some real statistics,albeit a rather small sample. I have
> received five positive, private comments on my posting from list
> members as
> opposed to only one negative comment. That's a pretty statistically
> significant outcome in favor of my position, and, in my mind,
> justifies
> what I said. Thanks to all of you who took the trouble to write and
> thank me.
>
> Finally, I have stated my loose affiliation with HJ quite clearly
> and out
> in the open. If some choose to believe that this invalidates my
> opinions,
> then they are certainly entitled to take what I say with a grain of
> salt.
> But I put this out in the open so that I could not be accused of
> having a
> hidden agenda. Believe me, I do not think HJ is even close to
> perfect, and
> I spend a large piece of my life pointing out their flaws to them
> and
> exhorting them to do better. But I try to do it in a constructive
> way that
> will help them improve, not by posting unsupported snipes at the
> company.
>
> At 11:19 PM 5/17/1999 -0600, you wrote:
> >Ken,
> >My message was indeed quite critical of HJ. I think it was more
> balanced
> >than yours, however, which lost credibility because of the
> unfettered
> >company praise and personal attack on me. The fact that you have
> an ongoing
> >financial relationship with the company also cannot be ignored. I
> have
> >spend extensive time with several screen readers and have no
> business
> >relationship, other than a customer relationship, with any of the
> developers.
> >
> >My ananalysis actually expressed significant pros and cons, not a
> simple
> >black and white situation. I acknowledged the strengths of the
> product. I
> >referred to public image, which is related to but not the same as
> reality. I
> >indicated that I was stating opinions, not facts.
> >
> >Rather than just stating your differing analysis, you accuse me of
> "utter
> >nonsense" and" "pure drivel."
> >
> >Surely, you know that a person can state opinions and the reasoning
> behind
> >them without having to post a scientific study on the net. I try
> not to
> >jump to conclusions quickly, and try to give people the benefit of
> the
> >doubt. I stand by my statement, however, that HJ presently has one
> of the
> >worst reputations in the field of adaptive computing.
> >
> >By the way, Microsoft dominates the market in several software
> categories,
> >yet few independent evaluators, attribute this to its software
> being the
> best.
> >
> >A recent example of misleading marketing was when HJ implied that
> JFW 3.3
> would
> >support Java applications. A previous example was when it said JFW
> 3.0
> >supported DOS applications.
> >
> >Having a single public beta version between build 13 and 22 did not
> impress
> >me in terms of quality control, and the problems with common
> scripts and
> >GPF's in popular applications support this concern. Just because
> you were
> >one of the beta testers does not mean the product was well tested
> overall.
> >
> >The fact that JFW is the hardest screen
> >reader for a blind individual to afford supports my pricing
> concern. More
> >than any other screen reader, JFW requires that a blind person find
> an
> >employer or agency to acquire the technology. How consumer
> friendly and
> >caring of the average blind guy is that?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Jamal
> >
> >On 1999-05-16 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Hello All -
> > I have just read a very nasty little note from Jamal Mazrui.
> Now
> > we all know that crabbing and complaining and even unsupported
> > innuendo are common enough on this list, but this note goes so
> far
> > beyond mere bitching that it deserves a measured and well
> thought
> > out response. I will do my best to answer Jamal's charges
> without
> > entering into a personal attack on his capabilities or motives
> for
> > writing such clearly libelous and ill-considered statements. I
> > know Jamal personally, although I have not seen him in several
> > years, and I know him to be a dedicated and intelligent
> individual.
> > After all, you'd have to be pretty smart to graduate from
> Princeton
> > University. I think there is presently no better university
> than
> > Princeton overall, though others can be as good or better for a
> > particular area of studies. I do think it would be a good
> idea,
> > however, for Jamal to revisit his class notes for any writing
> > composition courses he took at Princeton or possibly even in
> high
> > school before he writes any more such notes. I know that I was
> > taught to back up general claims such as those he has made with
> > actual facts and data. When I did not do this, my high school
> > honors English teacher always gave me a failing grade. Jamal
> > clearly gets an F for this effort.
> > For those of you who did not see Jamal's posting, it is shown
> below:
> > "I think there is presently no better screen reader than JFW
> > overall, though others can be as good or better for a
> particular
> > set of needs. For this achievement, HJ deserves credit. It is
> a
> > shame, however, that the company seems to care little about its
> > public image in the blind community. Telesensory and Artic
> > Technologies have had poor reputations in the past, but today
> HJ
> > ranks top in this unfortunate category. I base this statement
> on a
> > consistent pattern of user comments from a variety of sources.
> > Someone knowledgeable of the field almost feels obligated to
> defend
> > a decision about purchasing JFW because of the company's
> reputation
> > for poor technical support, low quality control, misleading
> > marketing, and exorbitant pricing. HJ may be able to maintain
> the
> > market lead because of its relatively large development
> resources
> > compared to competitors. If it doesn't seriously address its
> > public image problem through substantive customer-oriented
> changes,
> > however, it may lose its lead in the long run. Now let's
> examine
> > Jamal's assertions one by one. First of all, he says "I think
> > there is presently no better screen reader than JFW
> overall...."
> > Well, at least there is one area where Jamal and I agree. But
> let
> > me not fall into the same bad pattern as Jamal, that of not
> > supporting my assertions with facts. I have learned and used
> all
> > of the following screen readers besides JFW: Window Bridge,
> > OutSpoken, WinVision, ProTalk, and Window Eyes. Now I know
> this
> > isn't all of the available choices, but have mercy on me. It's
> a
> > good enough sample to know what I'm talking about. Only one of
> the
> > ones I mentioned even comes close to challenging JFW for top
> honors,
> > but I'll leave it to you to figure out which one I mean. Let's
> > just say that I think I have enough experience to know what is
> what
> > in screen reader land. Apparently I'm not alone in my
> conviction
> > that JFW is best. There are over 30,000 registered JFW users,
> a
> > number which is, I believe, far greater than all of the other
> > screen reader companies put together. I wish to state quite
> > clearly here that I do not have actual numbers to back up this
> > assertion, so please do not accuse me of pulling a Jamal on you
> and
> > representing mere opinion as fact. If any other screen reader
> > company has nearly this many users or if all of them exceed the
> 30,
> > 000 JFW number, then I apologize for my misstatement. The point
> is,
> > JFW is the most successful screen reader on the market. Why
> should
> > this be the case? I would say that this is the case because
> it's
> > the best product, and agencies, prescribers, and, most of all
> the
> > customers, agree. Obviously, Jamal would find other reasons
> for
> > JFW's rapid growth and success. Let's look at another of his
> > unsupported assertions. He says, "Telesensory and Artic
> > Technologies have had poor reputations in the past, but today
> HJ
> > ranks top in this unfortunate category. I base this statement
> on a
> > consistent pattern of user comments from a variety of sources."
> > Jamal sure doesn't like Henter-Joyce very much, does he? He's
> said
> > that HJ takes top ranking for having a poor reputation in the
> blind
> > community. I guess that's his personal ranking, even though he
> > doesn't say so, because I don't know of any formal award having
> > been given out recently. And what does he base his award on?
> He
> > tells us he has used "a consistent pattern of user comments
> from a
> > variety of sources." I'm sorry, Jamal, but this kind of loosey
> > goosey statistical claptrap isn't worth a hill of beans. If
> you
> > want to do a study on user dissatisfaction levels among the
> various
> > screen reader companies, then go ahead and do one. But you'd
> > better come back with good, hard data to support your
> assertions.
> > I suggest you look at various factors such as number of
> technical
> > support problems per month per thousand users, number of
> technical
> > support problems unresolved after 14 days per thousand users,
> > number of users employed overall and per thousand users,
> average
> > number of applications used per thousand users, average yearly
> > salary of blind employee versus screen reader, average number
> of
> > inaccessible applications per screen reader, and any other
> relevant
> > parameters you wish to study. However, Jamal, we will expect a
> > full statistical analysis with means, medias, and standard
> > deviations. Please note that in several of the statistics I
> > specified the result on a per thousand basis. You must
> remember
> > that, because JFW has the most users of any screen reader by a
> very
> > large margin, it is inevitable that it will receive the most
> > complaints overall, even if it's level of complaints per
> thousand
> > users is no worse than any other screen reader. This is a fact
> so
> > obvious, Jamal, that I cannot believe you overlooked it. Of
> > course you see lots of complaints in your unspecified sources.
> If
> > JFW had no users, they'd get no complaints . If they have the
> most
> > users, they're bound to get the most complaints. They'd have
> to
> > have a complaint level of virtually zero not to. Even if JFW's
> > annual unresolved complaint level were only one percent of
> > registered users, you'd still see over 300 per year. Jamal,
> have
> > you collected anywhere close to 300 complaints from your
> > unspecified "variety of sources"? If you have, let's see them.
> If
> > you have not, then JFW is doing a pretty damn good job. Maybe,
> > with helpful and constructive criticism from its loyal users (I
> did
> > say helpful and constructive, not the kind you gave), they may
> > someday get to a much lower complaint level, but if you really
> want
> > that, you need to do a better job as an advocate for your
> peers.
> > You'd better get started on your report right away. Now let's
> get
> > to the very nastiest part of Jamal's little diatribe. Let's
> > examine the following section, where he says, "Someone
> > knowledgeable of the field almost feels obligated to defend a
> > decision about purchasing JFW because of the company's
> reputation
> > for poor technical support, low quality control, misleading
> > marketing, and exorbitant pricing." Well, we've already covered
> the
> > part about poor technical support, so nothing more needs saying
> to
> > disprove that assertion, except to mention that you may have
> > noticed a few postings from other JFW users in the past couple
> of
> > days which also strongly disagree with Jamal. How about the
> part
> > about low quality control? Well, Jamal, I daresay I'm in a
> better
> > position to judge that aspect since I'm a beta tester and
> you're
> > not. I will tell you quite simply that HJ goes through an
> > absolutely exhaustive and exhausting round of beta testing and
> > quality control triple checking before it releases a product,
> and
> > that any unsubstantiated claims such as yours are pure drivel.
> Of
> > the six screen readers I am intimately familiar with, none is
> as
> > stable and reliable in my experience as JFW. In fact, none is
> even
> > close. If you disagree or have had a dissimilar experience,
> that's
> > something that HJ ought to consider as part of their ongoing QC
> > process. Why don't you help out by writing up the details of
> any
> > problems you have and send them to the beta team so they can be
> > studied? But to accuse HJ of low quality control without
> direct
> > evidence to support your assertion is, quite simply,
> inexcusable.
> > Does this mean HJ is perfect and never makes a mistake? Of
> course
> > not. On the 3.3 release they had already gone to press and
> printed
> > 3,000 CD's before they found out a bug in Windows was causing
> some
> > people to crash in Internet Explorer 4.01. This wasn't their
> fault,
> > and they could justifiably have told people experiencing the
> > problem to update their Internet Explorer files, but they
> didn't do
> > that. They were ready and willing to trash all 3,000 CD's at a
> > considerable cost rather than distribute them, even though the
> > problem wasn't within JFW. Fortunately, they were able to come
> up
> > with a floppy disk patch to ship with the CD's and, thus,
> avoid
> > the delay that would have resulted from starting all over
> again.
> > And you accuse them of low quality control! What utter
> nonsense!
> > And then there's the claim that HJ engages in misleading
> marketing.
> > Excuse me? Misleading marketing? That, Jamal, is a very
> serious
> > charge, indeed. Exactly which incidents of misleading marketing
> are
> > you referring to? To support this charge you'd better come up
> with
> > specific incidents of major claims made by HJ for their
> products
> > which were deliberately contrived to be false and mislead the
> > public about the capabilities of their products. And I'm not
> > talking about a feature here or there which, perhaps, doesn't
> work
> > quite as well as you'd like. I want to hear about specific
> > incidents of deliberate deception. Come on, Jamal, let's here
> what
> > you have to say. And, finally, there's the part about
> exorbitant
> > pricing. Is JFW's pricing really exorbitant? Well, it is the
> > highest priced screen reader on the market, costing $795 as
> > compared to most competitors costing $100 to $200 less. Okay,
> it's
> > more expensive. But the word "exorbitant" carries with it the
> > clear implication that the price is far higher than it really
> ought
> > to be. It implies that the manufacturer is gouging the public
> and
> > charging an outrageously high price for a product which simply
> > isn't worth the asking price. I'm very sorry, Jamal, but I
> don't
> > think so. And neither, apparently, do most of the other 30,000
> > users. In the world that I grew up in, the company that
> > manufactures the best product usually gets to charge the
> highest
> > price, and you've already admitted that JFW is the best screen
> > reader on the market. Yeah, yeah, we all wish it were cheaper,
> but
> > the development of that best screen reader requires a company
> of 65
> > employees with 11 technical support personnel. Those people
> aren't
> > there as window dressing, Jamal, there there because they're
> needed
> > to develop, manufacture, and support this product. And it
> takes a
> > lot of money to support 65 employees. Perhaps if you offered
> your
> > services to HJ for free they could afford to fire a couple of
> those
> > employees and lower the price of JFW. Obviously, Jamal and I
> have a
> > slight difference of opinion as to why JFW is the most popular
> > screen reader on the market. My contention is that it's the
> most
> > popular because it does the best job overall, and 30,000 other
> > users are evidence to support my belief. Jamal appears to
> believe
> > that, although it's the best product on the market overall, it
> > really doesn't deserve to be the most popular. His assertions
> > clearly imply that it got to be the most popular through
> deceptive
> > marketing and its "relatively large development resources" and
> > despite its "exorbitant" cost and poor technical support. I
> beg to
> > differ. And I further don't think that the other 30,000 users
> > think so, either. I don't think those 30,000 users could be so
> > easily fooled into a mistaken purchase by the Type of
> misleading,
> > low-life marketing you say HJ engages in. Jamal seems to think
> that
> > HJ doesn't give much of a damn about its customers. Let me
> tell
> > you about something which shows how wrong he is. There have
> been
> > numerous occasions when HJ has shipped patches and additional
> > scripts to help keep individual blind people employed when
> their
> > employers purchased inaccessible software. Yes, this is
> actually
> > true, They've done work to save individual jobs. This is one
> of
> > the issues for which Ted Henter invokes both love and agony
> within
> > HJ. He'll practically shut down the shop to help a single
> customer
> > while the staff is trying to develop products to improve
> > performance for the other 30,000 users. Since October, they've
> > done about a half dozen custom jobs (at no extra cost to the
> > customer). They've changed JFW to improve performance with two
> > different terminal emulation packages. In both cases, they
> shipped
> > unofficial versions of JFW directly to the customers so they
> could
> > get up and running right away. They've done a number of custom
> > script changes as well and sent them off directly to customers
> to
> > handle their problems. At least once per week, HJ's
> Development
> > Manager is on the telephone with some customer or another
> trying to
> > help him or her solve problems with oddball applications. He
> talks
> > to developers of internal, proprietary applications to offer
> > guidance on developing accessible applications, and other HJ
> > personnel offer a whole lot of free advice to people trying to
> > script difficult programs. Now, I'm not asking for extra
> hurrays
> > for HJ for doing these sorts of things. They should be doing
> them,
> > and other screen reader companies may do them as well. But
> Jamal
> > is just dead wrong when he says HJ doesn't care about its
> customers.
> > I'm nearly done now, but I want to say one more thing before I
> go.
> > Those of you who might accuse me of being partisan towards HJ
> > because of my associations with them as a beta tester and
> technical
> > writer should understand that I chose to associate myself with
> this
> > company because of its overall excellence and the superior
> > performance of its product versus the competition. Yes, I do
> lean
> > towards JFW, but I do so because I'm proud to be a small part
> of
> > the process that created it, not because I'm paid to do so.
> > Thank you very much for listening to what I had to say.
> > Best regards,
> > Ken
> > E-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Please visit my store's home page at http://www.audionexus.com
> > -
> > Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
> >
> >Net-Tamer V 1.11 - Registered
> >
> >
> Best regards,
> Ken
> E-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please visit my store's home page at http://www.audionexus.com
> -
> Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
-
Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
