That may be true, but how long did you have to wait before Jaws caught up with the industry standards and changes in new trends? Six months? A year? A year and a half? And by the time you got those scripts written, yet another piece of software comes out, mmaking that software virtually obselete; therefore, you have to go back to Square 1, or use the existing technology until Jawscatches upto the changes. Richie Gardenhire, Anchorage, Alaska.
On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:11 AM, John G. Heim wrote: 1. Voiceover requires more keystrokes to use than does jaws. 2. Jaws provides greater access to Windows operating system functions than voiceover does for macos. For example, try configuring ldap/ ActiveDirectory authentication on a Mac. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James & Nash" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac Hi, I'm not looking to upset anyone, but can I ask why do you think that VO and NVDA are not quite up to the standard set by JFW and We? Mac OS X 10.6 set the VO bar extremely high. This release has made VO a fully functional and viable solution for Blind computer users who wish to use a Mac. I am not saying that improvements do not need to be made, but that goes for all of the Screen Readers on all of the platforms and the operating systems generally. I admit that prior to this, whilst VO was very good, it did not quite hit the mark, and Apple's approach to accessibility seemed to be stagnating - andso I migrated back to Windows. This was a personal choice though. Keep in mind, that; NVDA, Orca and VO work in a very different way to JFW and Window Eyes. All three use object navigation - a concept which allows us as blind users to gain an idea of what our sighted co-workers etc are seeing on the screen. This is a radical concept, and one which Apple has been slammed for pursuing. It is also worth remembering that both Orca and Voice Over are being used on operating systems which are fundamentally and vastly different to Windows, both in concept and design. I do not mean this to be a patronising or condescending E-Mail, I am just curious as to why you think VO is not yet up to the standard of the commercial offerings of the Windows world? Please bare in mind, that these are just my opinions. If you'd like to discuss this further, please contact me of list as i think we may be going off topic here. TC James On 1 Dec 2009, at 22:10, John G. Heim wrote: > Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator > that > would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National > Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if > Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW > Micro > out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the > quality > of > Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those > products out of the market. > > Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I > argued > that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too > crummy > to > be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of > business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen > readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another > point > against the NFB position. > > On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or > nvda > full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lynn Schneider" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will > never > forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to > just turn > the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to > blame > for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people > are to > blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot > water. > A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic > mistake > of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out > of > the > box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of > blind > people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful > for > all > the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. > Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for > simply > suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers > take > for granted without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, > being > on > this list and seeing all the other blind switchers out there, I feel > at > least a tiny bit vindicated, as blind people are starting to see the > benefits of universal access. I really think it is the young blind > people > who are going to demand universal access, at least I hope so. They > are > the > ones who are going to benefit most from being able to buy an iPhone or > iPod > Touch like their peers and just start using the thing, and they are > hopefully going to demand more of that. With chips being so cheap > now, > there is absolutely no reason why universal access cannot be built > right > into things. The best thing we can all do is to spread the word far > and > wide about what Apple has been able to accomplish with their > products and > make them an example of what can be. > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > >> I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at >> hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers >> universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why >> Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the >> technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it >> brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a >> mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without >> sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then >> be >> forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their >> economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax >> dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what >> it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market >> is because they have contracted with some state agencies and >> government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. >> I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 >> to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest >> majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby >> boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for >> the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind >> kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them >> Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they >> could >> probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of >> us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis >> increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, >> Anchorage, Alaska. >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: >> >> I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they >> have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's >> why >> I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and >> secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but >> FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed >> market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating >> that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics >> ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if >> ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enough >> of them to make it worth their while. There is a cell phone put out >> by Capital Accessibility in Europe. I've seen one and it's no big >> deal. The speech is great, but there is no camera, digital screen, >> or >> anything that might ad a bit of a price to the phone. It's built >> like >> a brick, but it is over $500 and though the speech is clear, it's >> very >> robotic. Tell me that's not ridiculous? I don't know that agencies >> are responsible for this one, but the phone is so tailored to our >> needs that somebody will buy it. Not me. Granted, if more people >> were learning braille and speech software as they were dealing with >> macular degeneration, and there was a big enough demand for it, >> things >> might come down a bit. That's great about the scanner. I'd better >> stop typing now as I am misspelling more things than I am typing >> correctly and am about to throw this keyboard, though it's not at >> fault. >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: >> >>> With all due respect, that argument has been used time and time >>> again. To that, I say this: the best example of a product that has >>> gone down in price because of the acceptance of it by the sighted >>> community, is the optical scanner, which was originally intended for >>> use by the blind for scanning newspapers, magazines, and othr >>> documents in their computers or reading machines. Back then, you >>> had >>> to pay thousands of dolars for the machine, and ys, state agencies >>> bought it for us, if we were lucky. Now, one can buy a scanner >>> and to >>> a certain extent, software for scanning pictures, text, and other >>> document forms into one's PC, at a fraction of the cost it was in >>> the >>> 1970's. The point here is that it found a marketable niche among >>> the >>> sighted community, and once they were mass-produced, prices started >>> coming down and people could afford said scanners. While braille >>> displays are another issue, there are companies who are working to >>> make even displays more affordable and accepting to the universal >>> design market. In the 1980's, Apple tried an experiment, using an >>> ordinary, dot matrix printer, to produce braille. It wasn't the >>> best >>> quality braille, but it was an experiment that, had it been popular, >>> might have flown. Richie Gardenhire, Anchorage, Alaska. >>> >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 11:50 AM, carlene knight wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately you have to be realistic though. I agree with you >>> in a >>> sense, but going into a store and buying JAWS or Window Eyes off of >>> the shelf? That would be nice? that's one reason I like the Mac >>> and >>> accessories. The people in the Mac and Apple stores will likely not >>> be trained for extensive use with Vo, but they should be able to >>> make >>> sure it works. Try going into a Best Buy >>> and asking them if JFW works. We probably make up less than 10% of >>> the population so it isn't going to happen. It would still be >>> expensive, and that's why I needed the agency to buy it for me. >>> Again >>> don't get me wrong, in a perfect world that might happen, but we all >>> know the world is far from perfect. I'm not trying to defend >>> anybody >>> necessarily, and I don't consider myself dependent because I need >>> assistance from them. I got my own jobs, take care of myself, go >>> where I need to go etc. A good organization helps people become >>> independent. I agree that whenever possible, we should do for >>> ourselves and not be too dependent on anybody, agencies included. >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: >>> >>>> And for this reason, I feel that many state agencies, (Alaska's, >>>> being >>>> one of them)will be cutting back services, in favor of other things >>>> and as Mark so eloquently pointed out, the elderly, the poor, and >>>> the >>>> disabled, will be hurt first. I know thisis a different subject >>>> line >>>> from what was originally intended, and I apologize for that, but I >>>> will say one more thing on this, and that is that I'm in favor of >>>> universal design so that blind people can walk into any store and >>>> purchase off-the-shelf software and get it working and we not be >>>> forced to be co-dependent on state agencies to purchase our >>>> stuff. I >>>> guess, in a way, I'm against state agencies for the reasons I >>>> stated >>>> above. Richie Gardenhire, Anchorage, Alaska. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:32 AM, carlene knight wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Mark: >>>> >>>> I certainly don't hold a grudge as everybody is entitled to their >>>> opinion. However, if it weren't for the Commission for the blind >>>> here >>>> in Oregon, there is no way that I could perform the job I was hired >>>> for. I had to have a programmer write JAWS scripts so that I could >>>> get to the buttons, read the drop down boxes that just had graphics >>>> for names, etc. I couldn't have afforded the thousands of dollars >>>> that >>>> has costed. He is working as we speak since the company I work for >>>> has changed software and everything we had done in the past >>>> regarding >>>> the original software is now null and void. I could have not >>>> afforded >>>> a Braille display at about 12,000 dollars. I can say with >>>> certainty >>>> that there are few if any companies that would provide any of these >>>> services. Unfortunately many government funded agencies, including >>>> the Oregon Commission for the blind do know little about Mac >>>> accessibility as they have contracts with certain vendors, and, >>>> face >>>> it,whether we like it or not, a majority of companies still use >>>> Windows based software. My husband and I both decided on our own >>>> to >>>> try the Mac, and though I've had some problems, I'm glad I did. >>>> I've >>>> learned it without an instructor. We nearly lost our Commission >>>> last >>>> summer so when I hear people talking about how we shouldn't have >>>> government agencies such as this, I have to disagree though they do >>>> have their problems. Yes, some people do rely on others to much, >>>> but >>>> not all of us do. Like you, I grew up in the public school >>>> system in >>>> a rural area. I was born blind also. I'll get off my soap box >>>> now. >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Mark BurningHawk Baxter wrote: >>>> >>>>> You, and I to a lesser extent, and others are the exception. I >>>>> was >>>>> born blind, didn't go to any institutions for the blind, was >>>>> raised >>>>> as >>>>> an only child, mostly in rural Vermont with minimal help from >>>>> state >>>>> agencies. Graduated from Dartmouth when I was 20, again with >>>>> minimal >>>>> if any help from agencies--didn't have my first experience with >>>>> any >>>>> agencies or institutions for the blind until I was 24, when the >>>>> Carroll Center was offering a medical transcription course and I >>>>> needed another, safer place to be. They kicked me out of their >>>>> dorm, >>>>> making me homeless, after six weeks there. Rehab flatly refused >>>>> to >>>>> support me and my music career in any way, and pressured me to >>>>> go to >>>>> the Carroll Center in the first place, then pressured me to get >>>>> therapy and reform my ways when they made me homeless. I only >>>>> started >>>>> cautiously learning how to deal with the agencies in 2007, when it >>>>> became clear that my failing hearing was going to force me out of >>>>> the >>>>> transcription career I'd had for 13+ years. I learned Jaws and >>>>> Windows essentially by myself, as I've always been good with tech. >>>>> Even now, while I may have learned a little about how to get along >>>>> with the agencies and get what I need, it's a very uneasy truce at >>>>> best./ I hope to be starting a job at another institution for the >>>>> blind soon, but this time as a trainer, not a student, which >>>>> hopefully >>>>> will turn out better. You can see why I advocate for the >>>>> abolition >>>>> of >>>>> such systems. They do not foster independence of thinking, and >>>>> tend >>>>> to punish outside-the-box people, in my experience. I do realize >>>>> that >>>>> people blinded later in life may not adapt as fully as those born >>>>> blind; I'm learning that as I lose my hearing, so I have the >>>>> privilege >>>>> of seeing both sides of the coin, but think about what that >>>>> implies-- >>>>> that the pressure on those whose world has already been blasted by >>>>> losing their sight will essentially become putty in the hands of >>>>> high- >>>>> pressure agencies who are set in their ways. The system seems to >>>>> punish at both ends--if you're too independent, you're pressured >>>>> to >>>>> conform; if you're new to blindness, you're taught not to think >>>>> for >>>>> yourself. Hell, I didn't even do mobility orienting stuff until >>>>> last >>>>> year, when Rehab here in CA suggested I ry it, and I decided, in >>>>> the >>>>> interests of keeping the peace, what the heck; my mobility teacher >>>>> quickly realized that there was very little, beyond the immediate >>>>> rehearsing of directions, that she could improve upon what I and >>>>> my >>>>> dog were already going. Since I got Trekker, that's even more so; >>>>> now >>>>> that Trekker is temporarily broken, I truly feel the loss. :) I >>>>> don't >>>>> see how the agencies really have done me any good, other than in >>>>> the >>>>> purely material realm, and if I weren't as articulate as I am >>>>> about >>>>> stating my needs, and as forceful as I am about what I need, which >>>>> most people are not, even that gain might be minimal, and even now >>>>> the >>>>> damage is significant. So, that's where my beef with the >>>>> system(s) >>>>> comes in; sorry if that makes it a personal grudge, but there you >>>>> are >>>>> then. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mark BurningHawk Baxter >>>>> >>>>> Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 >>>>> MSN: [email protected] >>>>> My home page: >>>>> http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>> [email protected]. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> . >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> [email protected] >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> [email protected] >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected] >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected] >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en >>> . >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en >> . >> >> >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> "MacVisionaries" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
