In regard to whether MS Word 6 uses different script files, the answer is
no. All three major versions are covered by the Word for Windows Scripts.
In fact there are some very complicated parts of the scripts that deal with
the intersection between these different versions particularly in the
FocusChangedEvent scripts. There is however a special message file for Word
8. The actual difference in interface terms between Word 6 and Word 95
(version 7) are very small indeed. The main leap is with Word 97 (version
8) in terms of interface and the scripts required to access it. During the
installation of MS Office, in all probability JFW will be using the default
desktop scripts to read that installation routine.
One thing to bear in mind is that if you have used frames in Word at one
screen resolution setting. they will not necessarily work at another because
the references to the pixel locations will be inaccurate. This may mean
that you cannot read a special setup for your status line etc.
In general I think the reason why HJ suggest 640 by 480 resolution and a
colour depth of 256 is that they fall neatly into the original VGA standard.
I have personally found no difficulty with using 600 by 800 at 256 colours
as well. The VGA standard is important because JFW relies quite heavily on
the video card for it's information gathering. This route was chosen by HJ
because it allowed them to use a similar program architecture with both
regular Windows and Windows NT. Windows NT does not allow any direct access
to hardware and protects the software running as well, thus clever peeks
into the operating system are not allowed. All of this means that JFW can
be very vulnerable to differences in video cards and their drivers in
particular. This means that getting JFW to work with all video cards
reliably at high colour depths is likely to be quite difficult because there
is no common standard about how different cards and driver sets work at high
colour depths. HJ is not in a position to devise or control this aspect of
video standards, neither can they do all the accessibility work themselves.
The best thing one can do is press Microsoft to put their house in order
with
things like Encarta and Money 99. If both of these programs are using
custom colour schemes that require high colour depths then they are directly
contradicting their own White Paper on accessibility material relating to
how third party developers should do things. More positively they need to
improve the access infrastructures such as Active Accessibility which will
provide information from an alternative sources other than the video card.
So far, in my humble opinion Active Accessibility has not really provided
what was promised of it by Microsoft.
Those experiencing what they believe are resolution based difficulties
should
drop to the lowest common denominator of settings eg. 640 by 480 with 256
colours. Try JFW out with the read line and read highlighted text commands,
cursoring around in an application like Word, and a spreadsheet like Excel.
Also assess the ability of JFW to find the focus you expect, perhaps even
try Internet Explorer if you use that. Very high resolutions or very large
text in MS Word may cause the cursor to not track properly resulting in
skipped or repeated letters, or even absence of whole lines. In such
situations it may be necessary to use the config manager in JFW to fiddle
with the cursor definitions to get things reading again. If JFW seems to
work then things are OK. You could then try taking just the resolution to
600 by 800. If think for most people this should work, higher colour depths
are strictly optional and related to specific behaviour of video cards and
are not guaranteed to work for anyone. When you are downloading video
drivers from a website, and you have a choice, go for compatibility rather
than speed or newest version, unless there is some specific issue you know
about. If the rest of Windows works with JFW alright then there should
really be very little reason why it should not work with Word at a specific
resolution, especially if it is at or below 600 by 800 pixels.
As things stand at the moment, if your video card does not work at 24 bit
colour with JFW it's just too bad, if it does work it is a fluke, and you
are lucky. 640 by 480 resolution is what HJ recommend as a baseline setting
whilst most video drivers are optimised for operation at 600 by 800 at
least. Also Windows 95 assumes that for sighted people 600 by 800 with 256
colours is the practical minimum people are working at.
Hope this gives some pointers.
Tris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Carol Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 January 1999 12:53
Subject: Re: Colors and resolutions
>Hi there, Jeff,
>
>I have stated in two messages recently that I think this problem may be
>related to the fact that Word 6 uses different script files than Word 8.
>
>I didn't get past the install stage with Office 97. When I started I found
>I just couldn't read the choices on the CD. I had been able to read these
>perfectly on my husband's machine at 800 X 600. As I had no sighted help
>available and wanted to leave myself with a workable version of MS Office,
>I decided to leave well alone at that stage.
>
>
>--
>Carol Pearson
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>At 15:27 01/01/99 -0800, Jeff Senge wrote:
>>What specifically is not working right with JFW 3.2 and Word 8 at 640 by
>>480? I have found some work-arounds for some of the problems I have seen
>>with this combo but need to know what specific problems you are having to
>>respond appropriately.
>>
>>Jeff
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Carol Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: Friday, January 01, 1999 2:44 PM
>>Subject: Re: Colors and resolutions
>>
>>
>>>Hi there,
>>>
>>>I'm just writing publicly, although I expressed this in another message
and
>>>may have told you also privately, so that everyone is sure.
>>>
>>>I wrote in this thread that Word 8 wasn't working for me in 640 X 480.
>>>Following this, George wrote and said that it worked for him, so I
thought
>>>about it. My conclusion is that it may just not be a colours or
resolution
>>>issue but may be due to the fact that Word 6 uses slightly different
slript
>>>files. I asked for feedback on that. Until we have that matter sorted,
I
>>>don't want to be known as shooting off that Word 8 doesn't work in this
>>>resolution, rather that it hasn't worked for me in trying to install as
>>>things stand.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Carol Pearson
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 14:11 01/01/99 -0500, P Tusing wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>Hi.
>>>Thanks first to the excellent individual who wrote me privately re:
colors
>>>and resolutions. I wish I could post that message,but invite that person
to
>>>do so.The point was so well made.
>>> As new programs require the higher resolutions. there is a period of
>>>time where our software must adapt so we can use them. Also, regarding
>>>resolutions, there have been 2 postings stating that Word 8 does not work
>>>for them currently at a certain resolution.
>>> I have an S3Trio video card; Word 8 works for me in 640 by 480, but
>>>there areproblems with that resolution in other situations.
>>> Also regarding colors, there has been a posting saying that Quicken
99
>>>does not work in 256 colors.What do you do when Quicken 98 sells out and
>>>you have to use the 99 version?
>>> I had to find out the hard way that I had to use 640 by 480 to get
>>>anything out of IE 4.01 and had to experiment with colors. As a new user,
>>>it took weeks of trial and error, resetting and failing and retrying
again.
>>> I would summarize those who might be affected by the resolution and
>>>color issue with JAWS in to a few groups listed below.
>>> 1. An unspecified number of users of Word 8 and Quicken 99.
>>> 2. New users of IE 4.01 who haven't figured it out yet--(Yes, new users
>>>join this list ever day).
>>>3. In a small business environment where sighted people also use the
>>>computer and tend to dislike 640 by 480 resolution.
>>>4. In the home user environment where sighted family members gripe about
6
>>>by 4 in terms of their reading--particularly in games.
>>>5. Large print users who use JAWS. The resolution 640 by 480 plays havoc
>>>with large print programs.Eight people have written the list about that
>>>since November 98.Five others have said same to me-who are not on this
>>>list.The 6 by 4 influences the magnifying effect.
>>>6. General market for JAWS + large print... More JAWS users means more
>>>money for product development..There are speech programs that work easily
>>>in 800 by 600 resolution (which would solve the above issues).But JAWS
is
>>>excellent but "seems to" favor the 640 by 480 resolution..
>>>
>>>The exchange of info on helpful viedo cards and any other positive
>>>solutions would be greatly appreciated.Best wishes for 1999!
>>>
>>><<<<
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-
>>>To unsubscribe, see the home page
>>>http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~nallan/jfw
>>
>>-
>>To unsubscribe, see the home page
>>http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~nallan/jfw
>>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, see the home page
>http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~nallan/jfw
>
-
To unsubscribe, see the home page
http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~nallan/jfw
