I know this. I suggested a long time ago that there was a solution to the funding shortfall. All every blind person in the US needs to do is send them $1 a month. Have their friends and associates do the same. It doesn't seem like a lot, but its a geometric addition problem. so, $1 a month doesn't seem like a lot (I know, I do so automatically). THe problem I see is that no one wants to do this. they want the free product without any financial obligation. It isn't all that hard and what would you be out? just $1 a month.
-eric On Dec 19, 2013, at 2:10 AM, David Chittenden wrote: > Another comment about NVDA. NVDA is fully developed by volunteers. The reason > it is free is because the people working on it are not being paid. Even then, > it has almost gone under a few times already. Because it is completely > reliant on donations, and because the people who benefit from it represent > less than 0.5% of the market, and because a significant portion of these > people are taking advantage of the developers' generosity without providing > any donations in recompense (as easily proven by the fact that it has almost > folded a few times already, I would not expect it to be around forever. The > model is not very sustainable. > > David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA > Email: [email protected] > Mobile: +64 21 2288 288 > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 19 Dec 2013, at 15:26, "Littlefield, Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I have two points here. >> >> Firstly, OCR is a very CPU and memory consuming process. If you expect to >> get this on an an EReader, you're totally 100% insane. There are OCR engines >> out there, but the question of licensing comes to mind, which is actually >> something I forgot to mention on my last post with screen readers. You need >> to license (or put in the amount of money it would take to research and >> develop a synth), which is a pretty big issue. There's ESpeak, but that >> license may not work for some proprietary software. >> >> Finally, I'm not sure what issues you have with windows or why you trash >> them, but the standards you point out are actually followed. Microsoft has >> developed quite a few standards, usually to improve accessibility that >> screen readers are expected to adopt and have made them accessible for >> screen readers, which was the actual purpose behind them. It was for all >> intents and purposes the same idea Apple had with their adoption of Cocoa, >> with the minor fact that Apple can just adjust as much as they need for >> Voiceover while Microsoft needs to provide an API that can be accessed. As >> for Linux, there does not currently exist an API like MSAA or UIAA that can >> be used for screen readers. Each window manager has their own (at-spi, etc). >> So no, writing screen readers is not at all trivial. >> >> you also mentioned NVDA, which brings up another issue. They have done a >> great job at it, but they have also been working on this project for years >> and have the ability to use open-source projects and libraries they can tie >> into. They do this quite well, but it is yet another issue proprietary >> software would have to contend with--if no suitable licensed libraries are >> available to perform a specific task, some reinvention of the wheel will >> have to take place. >>> On 12/18/2013 8:37 PM, eric oyen wrote: >>> I can see the problems I have raised. However, the E-book readers actually >>> do have an audio port (how else are you going to hear other multimedia >>> content). THe authors guild doesn't necessarily represent all authors (in >>> fact, a lot of them are actually starting to publish via amazon and >>> others). If you look at their actions over the last 20 years, you will see >>> that they have actually acted to defend major publishers. >>> >>> Now, the issue of scanned images containing text can be worked around >>> effectively (there are several inexpensive OCR apps for windows or OS X >>> that work well). >>> >>> THe purpose of a library is the same as its always been: the free sharing >>> of information. We the blind have as much right to access to this >>> information that the sighted take for granted, yet the onerousness of >>> copyright laws makes this extremely difficult. This situation is not >>> improving (as evidenced by recent actions against both Apple and Google for >>> their books online). Again, we get left out of consideration when such >>> actions are taken. >>> >>> Now, complaining does work, if done correctly and to the right people. If >>> the vendor doesn't want to listen, one can always spend money elsewhere. >>> THere is also legal action (I would use this as a last resort when all >>> other negotiations fail). As for voting with your wallet, this only works >>> when there is enough people doing the same thing. This also only works if >>> there is more than one vendor offering that product with those features >>> desired. One other way that also works is to be able to produce a competing >>> product cheaper (NVDA is an example of this).If its as good or better, >>> people will flock to it, thus forcing the higher priced vendor to improve >>> their product or lower the price. This is simple economics 101. >>> >>> As for adding accessibility to an OS, the API's have already been developed >>> for Linux and OS X. Windows has one as well, but it (like the rest of the >>> OS) is practically a joke. THe problem here is that MS doesn't stick to >>> their own standards, so you end up with different versions of the OS not >>> being able to do some specific things. These days, coding in accessibility >>> to an app is pretty much a trivial affair if the proper API is followed >>> Developers don't have to go reinventing the wheel when it comes to TTS. >>> Again, we need to go back to the original point here. Should we, as blind >>> people, suffer in silence as we get second or third class treatment? Being >>> treated as less than human is demeaning and insulting. It may make me look >>> like an ass, but there are times when furious anger will get the point >>> across (I just wouldn't use it except as a last resort). It is incredibly >>> hard not to fly off the handle when someone insults me. >>> >>> Anyway, I think I have ranted enough. >>> >>> -eric >>> >>>> On Dec 18, 2013, at 1:33 PM, David Chittenden wrote: >>>> >>>> Wow, such interesting arguments. When eBook readers do not have built-in >>>> speakers, speech output is impossible. When the page of the book is a >>>> picture of the page, a scanned image, speaking that page is impossible. >>>> When the law is written such that the copyright holder has more rights >>>> around who can and cannot access the book than the potential reader has, >>>> accessing the book may not be legally possible. >>>> >>>> If you want to just flail around ineffectually making lots of noise but >>>> not necessarily getting very far, your stated approach can have limited >>>> success. However, would it not be better to learn the specifics in any >>>> particular situation so you can actually become effective? For instance, >>>> the author's guild is focused on keeping the copyrights law strong since >>>> writing and controlling who and how the book is read specifically effects >>>> the author's income. Authors do not earn any money for books which are >>>> checked out of libraries. However, people who really like books they read >>>> in libraries have a greater chance of purchasing their own copy. The >>>> argument against text-to-speech in all eReaders has actually been, if text >>>> to speech is used, people will not purchase the recorded versions of >>>> books, and the recorded versions are much more profitable. This is why NLS >>>> is so strict about who can access their professional recordings. >>>> >>>> When software is being designed, adding text-to-speech is significantly >>>> less difficult than adding TTS access at a later date. The same is true >>>> for wheelchair access to buildings. >>>> >>>> Depending on how the code is written, adding TTS and screen-reader >>>> navigation may well be extremely complex. In some cases, the entire >>>> operating system needs to be rewritten in order to add TTS and spoken >>>> navigation. To rewrite an OS can take a few years. You have no idea how >>>> long the original software was being developed before the company released >>>> the product, so the blanket statement that adding speech is a trivial >>>> matter, is completely incorrect in most cases. >>>> >>>> Bugs should be fixed quickly. I love this statement. It demonstrates >>>> complete and total ignorance. Bugs usually take a lot longer to track down >>>> and correct than adding new features. Operating systems are extremely >>>> complex. Bugs may have several causes. Changing code to repair one bug may >>>> cause a worse bug somewhere else in the system. Back when I studied >>>> programming in university, I spent most of my programming time tracking >>>> down, correcting, and then tracking down the bugs that the corrections >>>> generated. Sometimes, I left minor bugs because they did not impair the >>>> program's primary function, and I could not get the program to run any >>>> other way. >>>> >>>> All that said, unless you can either get a strong public upswell behind >>>> you to get laws changed, or you can develop good will between you and the >>>> developers, ineffectual flailing around may cause as much harm as good to >>>> your efforts. >>>> >>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA >>>> Email: [email protected] >>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288 >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 19 Dec 2013, at 8:35, eric oyen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> well, when I get what I want in a timely manner, I don't worry about it. >>>>> Its when I get substandard service, features or it takes a lot longer >>>>> than it should to get them,, then I am one of the most complaining >>>>> bastards out there. I make no bones about it, I expect excellence and >>>>> anything less deserves attention to resolve. >>>>> >>>>> Take, for example: the book famine for the blind. We have the same rights >>>>> as the general public to access media, yet there are those that are >>>>> fighting us tooth and nail because they don't want to deal with the >>>>> problem. The American Authors ild is particularly strident on this. They >>>>> won't allow the publication of content for the blind unless we sign up on >>>>> a special registry (does anyone at the library have to do this just to >>>>> borrow a book?). >>>>> >>>>> How about the E-book consortium which is trying to get a waiver based on >>>>> flimsy reasons (such as design modifications to the hardware, etc). Most >>>>> all functions on these devices are in SOFTWARE and is not difficult to >>>>> code for. Yet Amazon (and others) seek to get that waiver knowing full >>>>> well they are locking out a non-trivial market segment. >>>>> >>>>> Now apple did give us accessibility. However, that wouldn't have happened >>>>> if these two conditions were not met: >>>>> 1. we bitched to them for 4 years before they took notice >>>>> 2. the blind represent the 2nd largest market segment for computer and >>>>> smartphone technology among the disabled. >>>>> >>>>> in the 1970's, the deaf demanded (and got) close captioning (which >>>>> started showing up on TV in the early 1980's). >>>>> 2. wheel chair users fought for 20 years for accessibility rights (and >>>>> got them with the ADA in 1992). >>>>> Now, we the blind are the last to get anything and we are having to fight >>>>> tooth and nail to get it. >>>>> >>>>> My point is this: we are being put last before anyone else. We get >>>>> treated like incompetent idiots, yelled at because they think blindness >>>>> equals deafness and generally get disrespected in general public. If you >>>>> are happy with this situation, fine. Just don't expect the rest of us to >>>>> just lay down and accept it. I want whats mine and I will work to get it. >>>>> If this means that I go into court to get what is legally mine, I will. >>>>> Why be satisfied with anything less than what everyone else gets without >>>>> even asking for it? >>>>> >>>>> If anyone says I can't do a thing because of my blindness, then they had >>>>> better stay out of my way while I prove them wrong (in the most public >>>>> manner possible). >>>>> >>>>> We have rights and its time we had them enforced. >>>>> >>>>> -eric >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 18, 2013, at 2:52 AM, Krister Ekstrom wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, and it doesn’t matter if we get what we want, because then we >>>>>> whimper and whine about the fact that we have gotten what we want, >>>>>> either it is too late, too little, too much or just plain spoken the >>>>>> wrong way. I know that what i now will say is gonna offend people and i >>>>>> apologize in advance for that, but if we bash Apple accessibility and >>>>>> Apple decides that they don’t want to have anything whatsoever to do >>>>>> with the blind community then it’s a catastrophy that we deserve. Don’t >>>>>> misunderstand me, pointing to bugs and things that aren’t right isn’t >>>>>> wrong and shall be done provided it’s done in a constructive, polite and >>>>>> creative way, complaining serves no purpose and in the long run could >>>>>> end up really badly for us. >>>>>> /Krister >>>>>> >>>>>>> 18 dec 2013 kl. 03:42 skrev David Tanner <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, Robert it probably does more to hurt all blind users of Apple >>>>>>> devices than it ever will to help make things better. But, as I am >>>>>>> sure you known blind people have a long history of being hateful, >>>>>>> spiteful, not appreciating what is done for them, and constant >>>>>>> complainers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my accessible iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2013, at 7:53 AM, ROBERT CARTER <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think the idea that accessibility is less important to Apple since >>>>>>>> the death of Steve Jobs is nothing more than pure speculation and if >>>>>>>> anyone can prove otherwise, I would love to see the evidence. I see no >>>>>>>> value in such comments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Robert Carter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2013, at 7:42 AM, Scott B. <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Absolutely right. They can talking to engineering. But engeeniering >>>>>>>>> has the final say. I agree since the great Steve Jobs has passed >>>>>>>>> we're probably not seeing as much interaction from Accessibility as >>>>>>>>> people saw before. To sum it up very briefly Accessibility is where >>>>>>>>> you take the accessibility suggestions or problems. They either act >>>>>>>>> upon them y supporting you the person who needs help or passing it on >>>>>>>>> to the engineering team by escalation. Please also keep in mind these >>>>>>>>> are tier 2 support personnel so they can't know everything either so >>>>>>>>> be easy on these people. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2013 03:37, Ray Foret Jr wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Of late, I have noticed complaints against the Apple accessibility >>>>>>>>>> team as if to suggest that we are being ignored. It seems to be the >>>>>>>>>> belief of some that the Apple accessibility team fixes accessibility >>>>>>>>>> bugs and problems with Voice Over. I do not believe that this is >>>>>>>>>> the case. It is my belief that the Apple accessibility team has, in >>>>>>>>>> fact, a very limited role at Apple. Frankly, with the passing of >>>>>>>>>> the late great Steve Jobs, that role has perhaps demenished greatly. >>>>>>>>>> I believe that the Apple accessibility team never has had actual >>>>>>>>>> decision making capacity with respect to actual implementation of >>>>>>>>>> fixes for Voice Over. They didn’t even have this power under Steve >>>>>>>>>> Jobs. Unless I am very much mistaken, all the accessibility team >>>>>>>>>> has any power to do is to forward our findings over to the >>>>>>>>>> development teams but nothing more. They cannot even tell us >>>>>>>>>> whether or not our reports will be acted upon. Now, this last is >>>>>>>>>> most likely a part of Apple’s non disclosure policy: however, I >>>>>>>>>> suspect that even if this was not so, Apple’s accessibility team >>>>>>>>>> would not be informed in any case. In short, it seems that the only >>>>>>>>>> function that this accessibility team has and will ever have at >>>>>>>>>> Apple is not much more than a kind of clearing house of feedback >>>>>>>>>> from us blind users. I cannot help wonder how many Apple app >>>>>>>>>> developmental teams look at submissions from the accessibility team >>>>>>>>>> and say to themselves, “Oh, no, not again.”. I suspect that this >>>>>>>>>> explains why it is that our reports seem to go unheeded. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Mac, the only computer with full accessibility for the >>>>>>>>>> blind built-in! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>>>>> The Constantly Barefooted Ray, still a very happy Mac and Iphone 5 >>>>>>>>>> user! >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Scott Berry >>>>>>>>> Email: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus >>>>>>>>> protection is active. >>>>>>>>> http://www.avast.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>> email to [email protected]. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>> email to [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> -- >> Take care, >> Ty >> http://tds-solutions.net >> He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that >> dares not reason is a slave. >> Sent from my Toaster (tm). >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MacVisionaries" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
