Perhaps I could be agreeing in the fact, that just because a software is
accessible, automatically means it is best in protectiveness. And sure,
there exists at least as many viewpoints - even here on the list - as
there are alternatives for protection-ware.
Yet, I do have to caution a bit, when comes to one of your suggestions.
Downloading and installing some of the Anti-Viruses out there, could
prove far more time consuming, and frustration-raising than you ever
wanted. For one, try to get rid of McAFee, once you have installed it.
Or, if your computer was unlucky enough to come with Norton products
pre-installed. You likely won't be getting rid of the product, without
at least two eyes to help you out. Captchas on the screen has to be
solved, and they are definitely not accessible. Besides, we have had
reports on certain anti-software, that clearly conflicts with the screen
reader, even blocking some of the assistive technology, due to "false
positives".
So again, your point about paying attention to how protective a software
is, could be valid enough. Yet, to blindly encourage people to install
and uninstall multiple software, hoping that one of them will be
accessible enough, could end up causing the user to be left with a
computer so messed up with old traces of software, that much of his
daily usage will be greatly disturbed.
Besides, accessibility is declining, straight cross the whole board.
When I started out with Anti-Software, Norton was the thing everyone was
talking about. And it was accessible. Who wants to touch it now aday? I
too tried an early version of Avast, but won't say that is much for
accessible any longer. AVG, sure I have tried it, but at the moment did
not find it to be what I would name really accessible. No, I am not
going through the list of Anti-ware that I have tried.
When comes to protection, and which software is the best, you sure go
ahead and do your homework on the net. And, let me warn you. You are
going to be ten times more bewildered afterwards. Do we have different
preferences and opinions here on the list, be prepared that you are
going to find much higher waves on the stormy ocean of more or less
useful reviews on the net. Even the EXPERT-sites, do have their widely
divisive preferences. One say this, the other say that. And fact is,
none of them are totally right.
One person has run AVG for all ages, never got hit. The other one ran it
for less than ten minutes before his computer knelt. So the latter
installed MS Essential, and have never had trouble the last five years;
only to say "lucky him". The fhird comes around and can technically
prove the methods of MS Essentials to be totally useless, just throw the
"right" virus on it. And, the fourth can tell you that virus might not
be the worst these days, as new forms of malware have taken over the
whole market of malware. Hence, you are not protected without a handful
protectors installed, eating up high percentages of your computer's
resources.
My first advice, to all of you who wonder what anti-software to install
for best accessibility, would be to search the archives of this list. Go
for a search on AISquared's homepage for the list, trying to search for
a term like "antiVirus". And then, read the messages from the newest and
backward.
Next, you encourage VFO to cooperate with some of the Anti-Virus
software companies, to raise accessibilty. Great idea; had the world
been that easily put together. When I started using Win-Eyes, EVERYONE
was talking about Nod32. As a matter of fact, even when you contacted
GW, their staff would tell you that no other A-V at the moment was more
accessible. See where it is now aday, and ask the staff why they did
stop this kind of suggesting.
Accessibility is a dynamic thing. It goes up, and it climbs down. Times
are changing, and what used to be all that accessible yesterday,
overnight changed and became the worst night-mare you could imagine.
Some software might be accessible enough, could you just get it. But I
do remember having to contact the Avast-team, to even get their
installer, due to a capcha on their homepage that had to be solved,
before you could get to the downloadable. Sometimes you are lucky in
contacting the customer service of the product. Believe me, I have
tried. Some are really going a long mile to help you out, and might come
out with their next version, being the number one for accessibility.
Others, even when I am a long-time paying user, release a new version
totally ripped for all blind-friendliness. And when I contacted the
team, they sent my concerns to the tech-department, who simply responded:
"Our software is NOT accessible for blind users."
Good thing they knew to admit that much, at least. But as you can see, I
simply had to uninstall and ditch a rather newly renewed subscription of
an otherwise up-till-then accessible solution.
Even the screen reader itself, I sometimes wonder if could be the
challenge. The developers of assistive technology sometimes have to make
decisions as to what approach to take on a technical matter. Maybe what
they have to do to provide further general access on widely used
software like Office and Internet, will have to over-shaddow the techies
needed to handle some strange or old-fashioned way for an anti-virus to
operate.
Agreed, we are losing terrain, as blind users. And many things might
have been possible, could we just get the screen reader to work a bit
more according to what it promises. I am not going to deligate any guilt
here, sometimes it would go to the developer of the software, other
times it clearly could be blamed on the screen reader, and still other
times it could be the individual setup on the user's computer.
Finally, I am going to share one point with you all, which may be less
discussed. Did you know, that numerous malware is being released
regionally? That to say, the malware is not released freely on the whole
worldwide net. Someone might want to hurt or trouble a given market,
hence releases malware specially targeted. That is why, sometimes the
anti-ware developers, have to release definition tables taylored for
given parts of the world. Even Microsoft sometimes roll out security
fixes different times, in different parts of the world. Eventually, all
users might be protected, but who are the ones to be protected first.
And this might be one reason, why some people might be running
trouble-free with one solution for years. It is taking care of all the
trouble they ever get into, given their location and general computer
activity. Others, living a different place, doing differently on and
with their computer, tried the very same solution for protecting
themselves, and have never been hit anything more viciously than at that
time.
Sum of it all:
Every user should do his or her homework in deciding what to do for
protecting themselves. Make sure, when you decide, you do so in an
educated manner. Take no advice on the matter for granted, it could
never be anything more than an advice. No solution is totally
water-proof. If ever a solution comes out, which proves to be totally
safe - you be sure that is the first priority of the guys to break that
solution, hence you will be most vulnerable. Well, that is, I do know
one solution, which will be totally safe from computerized malware. Do
you wonder what that would be?
OK, here it is, totally free of charge:
Turn Off Your Computer, And Never Do Touch Any Electronic
Communication Device Again!
Smiles.
David
On 10/21/2016 3:19 AM, David Goldfield via Talk wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Some of the things I'm about to write regarding the subject of antivirus
> accessibility may be controversial to some and may possibly ruffle some
> feathers. This is not my intent. I'd just like to offer a slightly
> different perspective on this extremely important issue.
>
> I think that, with respect, people who wonder what antivirus programs
> are compatible with Window-eyes are asking the wrong question. The
> question we should all be asking, whether we're blind or sighted, is
> what antivirus or security solution is highly rated, according to
> independent lab tests. I realize the problem with this question is that,
> sometimes, what some may consider to be a good antivirus solution might
> not be compatible with our screen reader of choice. When we find out
> that specific solutions we might otherwise have considered don't work
> well with our screen reader, we choose one which is more accessible.
> Lest you think I'm looking down on all of you, please know that I did
> the exact same thing for years.
>
> In 1998, I began using what was, at that time, a current version of
> Norton Antivirus on my Windows 98 machine. The program was well-known,
> was shipped with my computer with a free, one year subscription and was,
> from what I remember, 100% accessible.
>
> Eventually, the program's level of accessibility began to change and I
> discovered AVG 7.5. It, too, was 100% accessible and was probably the
> only antivirus program to allow the user to change and redefine shortcut
> keys for its various functions, similar to the functionality of
> Window-eyes. It was amazing and it seemed like it was almost made for
> visually impaired screen reader users. I should note that I never once
> considered whether the program was actually effective in keeping my
> computer secure. As naive as this may sound, I'll admit that it never
> occurred to me to actually read objective reviews to see if AVG could do
> an even half-decent job in protecting my system. It was free, super
> accessible and had the word antivirus in its name. What more could I
> possibly want?
>
> As I'm sure many of you will remember, version 8 of AVG came along and,
> while the program was still mostly accessible, the interface changed,
> keyboard shortcut reassignment was gone and, over time, accessibility
> became a bit more problematic, although the program was certainly usable
> enough. Bear in mind that I haven't used it in several years and, if
> accessibility has improved, I'll be the first to celebrate that fact.
>
> So, like so many of us, I decided to find another program with the word
> antivirus in its title with at least reasonable screen reader
> accessibility. I found Avast 4.x and it wasn't bad. Like many blind
> people, I happily used it. Until 5.0 came around and the program was not
> accessible, though I know they've since been working on this and things
> have likely changed.
>
> So, I uninstalled Avast and found what I believed was the ideal solution
> with Microsoft Security Essentials. It was free, seemed light on
> resources and was 100% accessible. My problem, so I thought, was solved.
> Over time, I began to read that MSE wasn't doing as well in dealing with
> viruses but I figured, hey, I'm a cautious user. I take a lot of
> precautions: I update software regularly, adjusted security settings on
> my router, am careful about opening attachments to the point of
> paranoia, use a script blocker on most pages ... in other words, I was
> hardly what you would call reckless and used my computer as responsibly
> as I knew how. Of course, I knew even then that there was always a
> chance my PC could get hit by malware, no matter how careful I was, but
> I believed I was reasonably safe. Until I was hit by crippling malware
> which forced me to reformat my hard drive and reinstall everything,
> rebuilding everything from the ground up.
>
> I realize that there are many people who have found an accessible or at
> least usable antivirus solution who have never been hit by malware. I'm
> sure there are many happy users of MSE or Windows Defender who happily
> use their computer who may never be crippled by a virus. I also realize
> that corporations who deploy many different security solutions, who
> employ security experts who know a hundred times more than I'll ever
> hope to know, still get hit by malware. When it comes to computer
> security, there are no guarantees, no matter how much you know or what
> you do to protect yourself. My point is that, for years, I was content
> to place accessibility as a higher priority over safety and security and
> that simply isn't a mistake I'm willing to make again. For word
> processing, I use Microsoft Word, not only because it's quite
> accessible, but because it simply is one of the best word processors out
> there for what I need. Those who use Window-eyes use it because, for
> what they need, it's the best solution for them.
>
> I would encourage anyone considering their security needs to read
> reviews of which programs performed well with independent tests and then
> download a demo version of the program they choose; I believe most
> security programs offer a 30 or 60 day trial. If it doesn't perform well
> with your preferred screen reader, I would do a few things.
>
> First, write to the developer of the program with a clear description of
> the accessibility issues you're experiencing, with as much detail as you
> can provide. Let them know that you're considering purchasing the
> software but that you're unwilling to do so until the issues you're
> describing are addressed. If they don't respond, contact them publicly
> on Twitter. In addition, contact your screen reader developer to see if
> they can construct apps or set files to try and work around what you're
> experiencing. Computer security is too serious of an issue to make
> decisions about based on how well the program works with a screen
> reader, rather than making the decision based on how well the software
> actually secures the precious data on your computer. I love good
> conversation as much as the next person but, if I'm trying to find a
> good physician, I'll choose one based on how skilled he is as a doctor,
> rather than on how articulate or eloquent he may be. If he's highly
> skilled and a good conversationalist, that's fabulous but I prize skill
> and knowledge over how much we might have in common to chat about.
>
> I would also respectfully ask the staff at VFO Group to consider working
> with the developers of security software to see if alliances can be
> formed, with the goal of making these important software packages more
> accessible. Screen reader manufacturers forge similar alliances with
> companies like Microsoft for the same reasons. These alliances are what
> allows programs like Window-eyes to maintain compatibility and fabulous
> accessibility with programs such as Word, Excel and the operating system
> itself. When screen reader manufacturers say that they're ready to work
> with Windows 10 or Word 2016 out of the gate, it's partly due to these
> necessary relationships they form with companies like Microsoft. I'm not
> criticizing such partnerships. Nobody denies that screen readers are
> useless if they don't offer great support for products like Outlook,
> Word and even Windows 10 itself. I'm asking that VFO take this concept
> further and reach out to developers of security programs, to form
> similar partnerships. Having access to Microsoft Word is great. However,
> that accessibility means nothing if the security solutions designed to
> protect my Word documents isn't accessible.
>
>
>
> David Goldfield,
> Assistive Technology Specialist
>
> Feel free to visit my Web site
> WWW.DavidGoldfield.Info
>
> On 10/20/2016 12:51 PM, Tony C via Talk wrote:
>> AVG has a free one that is useable with WE. I will caution you
>> however that none of the free one's are all that great. I use the paid
>> version of AVG, it's like $39 a year. Well worth it considering it can
>> cost around $200 to take it to the PC shop because of a virus.
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Drew Clark via Talk
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 5:40 PM
>> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
>> Subject: antivirus with window eyes
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> sorry if this has been asked before but,
>>
>> what is the recommended free antivirus for window eyes? i am using
>> windows 7 here so no built-in antivirus. i want an accessible antivirus
>> and free. thanks
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
> and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>
> For membership options, visit
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/trailerdavid%40hotmail.com.
> For subscription options, visit
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
> List archives can be found at
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
> .
>
_______________________________________________
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
