Hi Bruce. Thanks for that. That's a good point. It makes sense. I
wouldn't want to discourage anyone from using the computer. It's a great
tool for everyone!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Toews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PC audio discussion list. " <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: Easy CDDA Extractor 821
You might be holding out quite a while, then, because eye candy is the way
of the future and if we're not going to come up with ways to work with it,
we'll be S.O.L. in the real world, a world where sighted people comprise
the majority and don't want to be held back any more than we do.
Bruce
--
Bruce Toews
E-mail and MSN/Windows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Site (including info on my weekly commentaries): http://www.ogts.net
Info on the Best TV Show of All Time: http://www.cornergas.com
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Gary Wood wrote:
Hi Steve. I'd hold out for accessibility, rather than eye candy. -----
Original Message ----- From: "Steve Pattison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PC audio discussion list. " <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: Easy CDDA Extractor 821
I think one possible reason why this checkbox no longer speaks is
because in recent versions of Easy CD DA Extractor there is now a
graphic
of a musical note to the left of each check box. I'm sure the author
of
Easy CD DA Extractor didn't make this program inaccessible
deliberately.
However there is strong pressure these days to use a lot of
non-standard
Windows controls to add what is called "eye candy" to keep people's
interest and attention. You only have to look at how many skins there
are
to change the appearance of many programs as well as the large number
of
visualization plug-ins for programs such as RealPlayer and Winamp and
many
others. I think the real challenge here is to find a way to use "eye
candy" and still make sure programs are accessible.
At 01:28 AM 7/07/2005, you wrote:
> I can't for the life of me understand why the writer changed the
> check/unchecked notification feature at all. It use to work just fine
> and it did not do anything bad to the program so why bother with it.
> I purchased the program back in early 2000/20001 and that original
> version allowed you to just arrow up and down the list and it would
> let you know which track was checked or unchecked. In fact, there was
> an option in the settings area that asked you whether or not you
> wanted to use check boxes or not. With this checked to yes ensured
> you would have this data read or you could set things with checkboxes
> and know whether or not a track was selected or not. The layout acts
> the same, so why not put it back. I just can't understand why
> programmers feel they must tamper with things that work. There is
> absolutely nothing improved in the program by making this info
> ungettable.
>
> I would say to the programmer "put it back and make the program better
> for us all."
Regards Steve,
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MSN Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skype: steve1963
_______________________________________________
PC-Audio List Help, Guidelines, Archives and more...
http://www.pc-audio.org
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
PC-Audio List Help, Guidelines, Archives and more...
http://www.pc-audio.org
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
PC-Audio List Help, Guidelines, Archives and more...
http://www.pc-audio.org
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
PC-Audio List Help, Guidelines, Archives and more...
http://www.pc-audio.org
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
