You don't discuss John, you preach. Anyway, thanks for proving my point. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Panarese Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:13 PM To: General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS X by the blind Subject: Re: Macs and a Viable Alternative for State Agencies to Consider
Not picking a fight here? The negativity continues .... You don't debate, Abdul. You are a literary arsonist. John D. Panarese Managing Director Technologies for the Visually Impaired, Inc. 9 Nolan Court Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel/Fax, (631) 724-4479 Email, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet, http://www.tvi-web.com AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTORS FOR PORTSET SYSTEMS LTD, COMPSOLUTIONS VA, PREMIER ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INDEX, PAPENMEIER, REPRO-TRONICS, DUXBURY, SEROTEK AND OTHER PRODUCTS FOR THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED AUTHORIZED APPLE BUSINESS AGENT MAC VOICEOVER TRAINING On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Abdul Kamara wrote: > There can be no better exemplar for lack of objectivity than the > person who is of the notion that Macs are used by a higher percentage > of creative people. > > Where my comments on this subject are concerned, I think the following > apply. To use the term "exclusively" to paraphrase my statement that > was qualified with words like "more" and "less", tells of a person who > is so > abjectly moronic or in dire need of learning the English language. > That's > not you, is it Josh? Don't pick a fight with me. It's not the > purpose of this board. > > For your information, I support a balanced approach. My position is > simply that if this board is any indication, and given the failure of > many I know to convince their counselors to get them the things that > they need, as opposed to what the counselor thinks they need, my > approach is the best bet. > > If you know anything about debate, persuasion or good argumentation, > you would know that the key to winning is addressing the perceived > weaknesses of your position. Because this is the area of dispute, it > takes more energy > than is required to argue the strengths, which are not in dispute. > Would > you like an example? Sure you do! > > Weakness: Mac OS X is not as well supported by major developers as > compared to Windows > Strengths: Mac OS X with VoiceOver is truck-loads less expensive than > Windows with JAWS. > > In a real sense, if there is insufficient energy put on the first of > the two, the strong point ironically becomes weak, and perhaps even > irrelevant; because the response of the DR counselor would be, "Yes, > cost is an issue, but we are more interested in getting you the right > equipment". > > In truth, there is a really good multi-level answer to the issue of > application support, one that I've yet to see here. But in addressing > the weak point, ergo assuaging the apprehension of the counselor, the > strong point becomes icing on the cake. Anyway, I have offered to > help draft a talking points, but you seem more willing to question my > objectivity. > > In point of fact, I am really good at crafting solid arguments, a > talent for > which I have received both state level and national championships. > In so > far as anyone's desire to approach State counselors on this issue, > this is what I bring to the mix. In fact, I was able to convince my > hard- nosed counselor to get me one. > > Also, the weakest argument you can make to a counselor in favor of a > Mac, is "well, things are not as accessible now, but hold out just a > bit longer it will get better." In the mean time, there are all of > these other programs that sort of do what the standard applications > do. The question that any counselor worth his or her salt should ask > is, "well, how do you know it will get better? And why should we wait > and not get you the PC with the programs that you need for school or > work, that we know (well,) work! > Besides, you cannot expect to find viable Mac alternatives for every > single application you may need to use in an academic setting or work > place." > Again, there is a really good answer for this, none of which I'm > willing to explain in this post, as it is already too damn long! > > My point, people don't know how to make their case to counselors. > They > think they do, but they don't. That's why most of them are > entrenched. > > And, in my view, given their proclivity for platform loyalty, > developers often make the worse advocates for issues like this. They > are problem-solvers, who are excited about working their ways around > obstacles. > This is a respectable, admirable trait to be sure. But work-arounds, > require a lot of energy, and it is already hard enough being a full > time blind college student, or employee who has other problems (some > more or less complex than others) to solve. [Ok, that was a really > bad run-on sentence, but I'm too tired to fix it!] > > My proposal is that a few people work on a document, circulate a draft > through the list, make appropriate edits, then post it on the Mac > Visionaries web site. And perhaps with the document in hand, start an > organized movement to get State organizations for the blind to look at > the Macs viability. > > Ok, Josh, I'm done now, attack if you are inclined. > > > Abdul > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh de > Lioncourt > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:33 PM > To: General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS X > by the blind > Subject: Re: Macs and a Viable Alternative for State Agencies to > Consider > > > Focussing exclusively on the strengths or weaknesses of any platform > is by its very nature a lack of objectivity. A balanced approach is > the way to go. If one tries to enlighten people of the reasons to use > the Mac platform by sticking primarily to its shortcomings....well, I > think the absurdity of such an idea speaks for itself. > > Office 2008 for Mac should be out later this year, and it is important > to point out that it is the first version of the suite to be released > since the introduction of VoiceOver. It'll be interesting to see if > it is more accessible than the 2004 version. > > Either way, many many programs have the ability to import and export > to Office compatible formats, and I expect that to become more and > more the case as XML seaps its way into everything. > > Nowadays, I have much greater success finding software that works > decently to stellar with VoiceOver than I do finding software on > Windows that works well with the screen readers available for that > platform. This was not the case two years ago, but I think is very > clearly the case now. This has a lot to do with the tremendous amount > of custom controls being used without a thought to accessibility under > Windows, even when it isn't necessary. A high number of apps for Mac > developed over the last two years are accessible simply because Cocoa > makes them so with little or no work on the parts of the developers. > The VO compatibility database we've been contributing to helps > illustrate this point. I expect this to continue to broaden options > on the Mac for blind users. > > > Josh de Lioncourt > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ...my other mail provider is an owl... > > > > On Jun 20, 2007, at 1:07 AM, Abdul Kamara wrote: > >> Hello Harry or Linda, >> >> This is an excellent point. Bring it up, and many would accuse you >> of being an Apple basher. >> >> As it stands, Office is not accessible via Voice Over. >> Blackboard, if >> it is the same here as it is in the States, is a web Application, and >> depending on VoiceOver's capabilities, you should have no problems >> accessing it. >> >> The key here is intellectual honesty. Counselors have good reason to >> be skeptical of the Mac and its viability. As someone who is >> training to be a Barrister, I would say that key to unearthing any >> entrenched positions and switching them to yours is willingness on >> your part to acknowledge the weaknesses of your position, and >> respecting why others believe differently. >> >> Subsequently, any talking point devised to help counselors see the >> light, must take into account the reason why they get the computers >> for their clients in the first place. It's all about the education >> and jobs. And they are going to support a platform that dominates, >> supporting more applications for the disabled. As much as I love >> Apple, this is an inescapable truth. >> >> To all who are planning on writing anything on this issue, I would >> implore you to do the following. Focus less energy on wy you think >> the Mac is "superior" and put more on addressing the actual >> weaknesses (because they are there). They are not insurmountable, >> but failure to address them will lead to dismissal and more hardliner >> points of view on the part of rehabilitation counselors. >> >> >> >> >> > >
