Re: Economics and the Mac
Hi Ben, this is the Springfield school district, right next to Eugene, Oregon where we live that uses all macs. what they use in their district offices, I haven't a clue. but in the schools themselves, its mac all the way according to my better half. Mary -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
Dear Mary, What school district is this? This is fantastic! Those lucky children. I hope you have a wonderful day. Blessings, Ben King On Jun 23, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Mary Otten wrote: > the school system where my husband teaches here in Oregon uses all macs. I > don't know if others do or not. > > Mary > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
the school system where my husband teaches here in Oregon uses all macs. I don't know if others do or not. Mary -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
Ah, Ok. I guess this might have much to do with States or regions. At least in NYC its rare to see a Mac in a school or library now a days On Jun 23, 2010, at 10:38 PM, Chris Snyder wrote: > Well, I saw the macs in my own schools starting in about 1986 when I was in > second grade. But as I said, my children, the oldest of whom is eight, use > macs in their school. I checked into it, and the entire district as well as > several surrounding it also use macs. > > Friendly, > Chris > > On Jun 23, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Ricardo Walker wrote: > >> I don't know, >> >> The last time I saw a Mac in a school I was 11 years old. This was in 1994. >> all throughout high school and college I've yet to see one. The public >> libraries all use windows PCs as well. How far back are you guys talking >> about since you've seen Macs in schools? I don't mean to be rude but, if >> your using your experiences from what you used 20 years ago I don't know how >> valid that is. >> On Jun 23, 2010, at 9:39 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote: >> >>> Not totally sure on that minority claim. >>> fro many many years, apple had the apple core program where they donated >>> apple computers to schools around the country. >>> I went to high school in Arkansas...a grand while ago, and the computers we >>> had were apple computers. >>> You might be surprised how many schools are so equip. >>> Karen >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Michael Thurman wrote: >>> every school system that I have ever had any dealings with uses macintosh computers in at least some of their labs and teaching. On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Ricardo Walker wrote: > Hi, > > I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. > It really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. > On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: > >> In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high >> school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools >> around here, are Mac-based. >> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart >> wrote: >> Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between >> the National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader >> companies, they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for >> putting blind people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that >> hot potato was more trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. >> >> I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen >> reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley >> Systems got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while >> individuals might like Macs, business and academia will continue to >> insist on Windows machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly >> irrelevant to them. >> >> Bryan >> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: >> >>> I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at >>> hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers >>> universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why >>> Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the >>> technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it >>> brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a >>> mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without >>> sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be >>> forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their >>> economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax >>> dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what >>> it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market >>> is because they have contracted with some state agencies and >>> government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. >>> I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 >>> to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest >>> majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby >>> boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for >>> the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind >>> kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them >>> Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could >>> probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of >>> us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis >>> increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, >>> Anchorage, Alaska. >>> >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: >>> >>> I know that the
Re: Economics and the Mac
Well, I saw the macs in my own schools starting in about 1986 when I was in second grade. But as I said, my children, the oldest of whom is eight, use macs in their school. I checked into it, and the entire district as well as several surrounding it also use macs. Friendly, Chris On Jun 23, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Ricardo Walker wrote: > I don't know, > > The last time I saw a Mac in a school I was 11 years old. This was in 1994. > all throughout high school and college I've yet to see one. The public > libraries all use windows PCs as well. How far back are you guys talking > about since you've seen Macs in schools? I don't mean to be rude but, if > your using your experiences from what you used 20 years ago I don't know how > valid that is. > On Jun 23, 2010, at 9:39 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote: > >> Not totally sure on that minority claim. >> fro many many years, apple had the apple core program where they donated >> apple computers to schools around the country. >> I went to high school in Arkansas...a grand while ago, and the computers we >> had were apple computers. >> You might be surprised how many schools are so equip. >> Karen >> >> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Michael Thurman wrote: >> >>> every school system that I have ever had any dealings with uses macintosh >>> computers in at least some of their labs and teaching. >>> On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Ricardo Walker wrote: >>> Hi, I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. It really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: > In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high > school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around > here, are Mac-based. > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart > wrote: > Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between > the National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader > companies, they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for > putting blind people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot > potato was more trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. > > I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen > reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley > Systems got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while > individuals might like Macs, business and academia will continue to > insist on Windows machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly > irrelevant to them. > > Bryan > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > >> I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at >> hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers >> universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why >> Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the >> technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it >> brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a >> mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without >> sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be >> forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their >> economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax >> dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what >> it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market >> is because they have contracted with some state agencies and >> government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. >> I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 >> to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest >> majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby >> boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for >> the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind >> kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them >> Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could >> probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of >> us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis >> increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, >> Anchorage, Alaska. >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: >> >> I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they >> have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why >> I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and >> secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but >> FS knows t
Re: Economics and the Mac
Hi, I saw a Mack in school since 1997, when I was in first grade. They've been in the schools in my county ever since. And they have them at the college that I'm currently attending. On Jun 23, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Ricardo Walker wrote: > I don't know, > > The last time I saw a Mac in a school I was 11 years old. This was in 1994. > all throughout high school and college I've yet to see one. The public > libraries all use windows PCs as well. How far back are you guys talking > about since you've seen Macs in schools? I don't mean to be rude but, if > your using your experiences from what you used 20 years ago I don't know how > valid that is. > On Jun 23, 2010, at 9:39 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote: > >> Not totally sure on that minority claim. >> fro many many years, apple had the apple core program where they donated >> apple computers to schools around the country. >> I went to high school in Arkansas...a grand while ago, and the computers we >> had were apple computers. >> You might be surprised how many schools are so equip. >> Karen >> >> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Michael Thurman wrote: >> >>> every school system that I have ever had any dealings with uses macintosh >>> computers in at least some of their labs and teaching. >>> On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Ricardo Walker wrote: >>> Hi, I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. It really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: > In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high > school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around > here, are Mac-based. > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart > wrote: > Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between > the National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader > companies, they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for > putting blind people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot > potato was more trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. > > I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen > reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley > Systems got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while > individuals might like Macs, business and academia will continue to > insist on Windows machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly > irrelevant to them. > > Bryan > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > >> I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at >> hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers >> universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why >> Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the >> technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it >> brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a >> mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without >> sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be >> forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their >> economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax >> dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what >> it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market >> is because they have contracted with some state agencies and >> government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. >> I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 >> to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest >> majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby >> boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for >> the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind >> kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them >> Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could >> probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of >> us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis >> increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, >> Anchorage, Alaska. >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: >> >> I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they >> have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why >> I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and >> secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but >> FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed >> market. I'm not saying things could no
Re: Economics and the Mac
I don't know, The last time I saw a Mac in a school I was 11 years old. This was in 1994. all throughout high school and college I've yet to see one. The public libraries all use windows PCs as well. How far back are you guys talking about since you've seen Macs in schools? I don't mean to be rude but, if your using your experiences from what you used 20 years ago I don't know how valid that is. On Jun 23, 2010, at 9:39 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote: > Not totally sure on that minority claim. > fro many many years, apple had the apple core program where they donated > apple computers to schools around the country. > I went to high school in Arkansas...a grand while ago, and the computers we > had were apple computers. > You might be surprised how many schools are so equip. > Karen > > > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Michael Thurman wrote: > >> every school system that I have ever had any dealings with uses macintosh >> computers in at least some of their labs and teaching. >> On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Ricardo Walker wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. It >>> really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. >>> On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: >>> In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around here, are Mac-based. On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart wrote: Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley Systems got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while individuals might like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist on Windows machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to them. Bryan On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. > I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 > to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest > majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby > boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for > the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind > kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them > Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could > probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of > us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis > increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, > Anchorage, Alaska. > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: > > I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they > have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why > I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and > secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but > FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed > market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating > that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics > ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if > ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enough > of them to make it worth their while. There is a cell phone put out >
RE: Economics and the Mac
Yeh, and my schools in the 1980's and 90's had Apple IIs and Macs, also. I learned to program on an Apple IIe that I got to use at school. My first encounter with assistive tech was an Apple IIe with an Echo II, Braille-Edit, and a Cramner embosser. Since then, there has been the Internet revolution, the smartphone revolution, 7 major releases of the Mac OS (in different forms), at least 7 major releases of Windows, Linux, and so on. That has been a long time. Hey, if there were Macs around here, or in any state around here, I'd be all for it and eager to pick up the work. All the outreach divisions associated with agencies that serve the AT needs of disabled students have practically no demand for Mac services. They're tasked with providing equipment, training, and associated services to help a disabled student use the same computing resources as their sighted peers. So, if there are Macs, and the student has to use them, it is on the agencies to make it work. None of them bother to learn anything about the Mac, because there is no demand for it at work. When the odd ball situation comes up, they contract out the work, which is rare. I'm the only contractor they have that supports the Mac, and rarely do I get work from them for that reason. Usually, they contact me about technology issues related to assistive tech for music. I bet there are many school districts in California that use Macs. I suspect that there are other clusters of Mac use. I can tell you, though, in the south-eastern US, the school world is thousands and thousands of Windows-based PCs, adapted for the totally blind, when needed, with Jaws. I don't really like it, but that's how it is here. Bryan -Original Message- From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Karen Lewellen Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:39 PM To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac Not totally sure on that minority claim. fro many many years, apple had the apple core program where they donated apple computers to schools around the country. I went to high school in Arkansas...a grand while ago, and the computers we had were apple computers. You might be surprised how many schools are so equip. Karen On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Michael Thurman wrote: > every school system that I have ever had any dealings with uses macintosh > computers in at least some of their labs and teaching. > On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Ricardo Walker wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. It >> really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. >> On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: >> >>> In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high >>> school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around >>> here, are Mac-based. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart >>> wrote: >>> Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the >>> National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, >>> they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind >>> people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more >>> trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. >>> >>> I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen >>> reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley >>> Systems got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while >>> individuals might like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist >>> on Windows machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to >>> them. >>> >>> Bryan >>> >>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: >>> >>>> I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion >>>> at hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac >>>> computers universally marketed across the board, there is no reason >>>> why Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and >>>> the technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if >>>> it brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop >>>> a mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box >>>> without sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific >>>> would then be forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they >>>> would lose their economic dolars; after all, isn't that what >>>> competition for tax
Re: Economics and the Mac
I hate to say it this way, but I agree with you about the NFB. I don't think you could have said it any better (smiley). All the school systems I have been through had Macks, the first computer I ever started with was a Mack, I guess it was an Apple 2, not sure though. Courtney On Jun 23, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Michael Thurman wrote: > that is why I can't stand the NFB but then again a rich attourney runs it, or > used to, so what do you expect. he has disposable income > On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Chris Snyder wrote: > >> Hmm, The school system here in Arizona has always dealt with Apple. When I >> was little, we had Apple 2E and 2GS computers, and when I got to high >> school, we had the mac SE and other models. Now that my own children are in >> school, they're learning on iMacs. Apple has always been involved with k-12 >> education here. It's actually rather nice since I can help the kids with >> their computer classes on the Mac. >> As far as the libraries around town go, they're all PC based, especially in >> the adaptive technology rooms where they keep the braille writers and >> scanners and such. >> As far as Microsoft trying to make a screen reader is concerned, once again, >> the NFB shoots blind people without state help in the foot yet again. I >> would always would rather not pay extra for adaptive tech, and indeed it's >> why I got rid of all but one of the PC's in the house. >> The more I see of the iPhone, the more excited I get over it, and the more I >> actually consider switching to AT&T's evil empire. >> Anyway, just my two cents. >> >> Friendly, >> Chris >> >> On Jun 23, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Ricardo Walker wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. It >>> really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. >>> On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: >>> In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around here, are Mac-based. On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart wrote: Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley Systems got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while individuals might like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist on Windows machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to them. Bryan On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. > I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 > to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest > majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby > boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for > the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind > kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them > Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could > probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of > us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis > increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, > Anchorage, Alaska. > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: > > I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they > have a gua
Re: Economics and the Mac
Not totally sure on that minority claim. fro many many years, apple had the apple core program where they donated apple computers to schools around the country. I went to high school in Arkansas...a grand while ago, and the computers we had were apple computers. You might be surprised how many schools are so equip. Karen On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Michael Thurman wrote: every school system that I have ever had any dealings with uses macintosh computers in at least some of their labs and teaching. On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Ricardo Walker wrote: Hi, I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. It really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around here, are Mac-based. On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart wrote: Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley Systems got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while individuals might like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist on Windows machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to them. Bryan On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market is because they have contracted with some state agencies and government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, Anchorage, Alaska. On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enough of them to make it worth their while. There is a cell phone put out by Capital Accessibility in Europe. I've seen one and it's no big deal. The speech is great, but there is no camera, digital screen, or anything that might ad a bit of a price to the phone. It's built like a brick, but it is over $500 and though the speech is clear, it's very robotic. Tell me that's not ridiculous? I don't know that agencies are responsible for this one, but the phone is so tailored to our needs that somebody will buy it. Not me. Granted, if more people were learning braille and speech software as they were dealing with macular degeneration, and there was a big enough demand for it, things might come down a bit. That's great about the scanner. I'd better stop typing now as I am misspelling more things than I am typing correctly and am about to throw this keyboard, though it's not at fault. On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Richie Garden
Re: Economics and the Mac
that is why I can't stand the NFB but then again a rich attourney runs it, or used to, so what do you expect. he has disposable income On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Chris Snyder wrote: > Hmm, The school system here in Arizona has always dealt with Apple. When I > was little, we had Apple 2E and 2GS computers, and when I got to high school, > we had the mac SE and other models. Now that my own children are in school, > they're learning on iMacs. Apple has always been involved with k-12 education > here. It's actually rather nice since I can help the kids with their computer > classes on the Mac. > As far as the libraries around town go, they're all PC based, especially in > the adaptive technology rooms where they keep the braille writers and > scanners and such. > As far as Microsoft trying to make a screen reader is concerned, once again, > the NFB shoots blind people without state help in the foot yet again. I would > always would rather not pay extra for adaptive tech, and indeed it's why I > got rid of all but one of the PC's in the house. > The more I see of the iPhone, the more excited I get over it, and the more I > actually consider switching to AT&T's evil empire. > Anyway, just my two cents. > > Friendly, > Chris > > On Jun 23, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Ricardo Walker wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. It >> really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. >> On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: >> >>> In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high >>> school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around >>> here, are Mac-based. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart >>> wrote: >>> Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the >>> National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, >>> they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind >>> people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more >>> trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. >>> >>> I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen >>> reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley >>> Systems got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while >>> individuals might like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist >>> on Windows machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to >>> them. >>> >>> Bryan >>> >>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: >>> >>> > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at >>> > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers >>> > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why >>> > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the >>> > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it >>> > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a >>> > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without >>> > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be >>> > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their >>> > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax >>> > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what >>> > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market >>> > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and >>> > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. >>> > I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 >>> > to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest >>> > majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby >>> > boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for >>> > the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind >>> > kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them >>> > Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could >>> > probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of >>> > us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis >>> > increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, >>> > Anchorage, Alaska. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: >>> > >>> > I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they >>> > have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why >>> > I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and >>> > secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but >>> > FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed >>> > market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating >>> > that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electroni
Re: -- SPAM -- Re: Economics and the Mac
That's very interesting! I had never heard MS was interested in developing a screen reader. I thought their position was always it was better left to third party vendors. Of course back then MS was also under pressure for forcing people to take Internet Explorer as part of the OS. I wonder how good the screen reader would have been or what their long term commitment to it would have been. Twenty years ago Ibm developed a screen reader first for Dos then later for Os2 only to let them die later on. On Jun 23, 2010, at 9:25 PM, Michael Thurman wrote: > every school system that I have ever had any dealings with uses macintosh > computers in at least some of their labs and teaching. > On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Ricardo Walker wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. It >> really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. >> On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: >> >>> In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high >>> school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around >>> here, are Mac-based. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart >>> wrote: >>> Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the >>> National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, >>> they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind >>> people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more >>> trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. >>> >>> I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen >>> reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley >>> Systems got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while >>> individuals might like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist >>> on Windows machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to >>> them. >>> >>> Bryan >>> >>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: >>> >>> > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at >>> > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers >>> > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why >>> > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the >>> > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it >>> > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a >>> > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without >>> > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be >>> > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their >>> > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax >>> > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what >>> > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market >>> > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and >>> > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. >>> > I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 >>> > to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest >>> > majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby >>> > boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for >>> > the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind >>> > kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them >>> > Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could >>> > probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of >>> > us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis >>> > increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, >>> > Anchorage, Alaska. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: >>> > >>> > I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they >>> > have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why >>> > I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and >>> > secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but >>> > FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed >>> > market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating >>> > that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics >>> > ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if >>> > ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enough >>> > of them to make it worth their while. There is a cell phone put out >>> > by Capital Accessibility in Europe. I've seen one and it's no big >>> > deal. The speech is great, but there is no camera, digital screen, or >>> > anything that might ad a bit of a price to the phone. It's built like >>> > a brick, but it is over $500 and though the speech is clear, it's very >>> > robotic. Tell me t
Re: Economics and the Mac
every school system that I have ever had any dealings with uses macintosh computers in at least some of their labs and teaching. On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Ricardo Walker wrote: > Hi, > > I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. It > really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. > On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: > >> In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high >> school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around >> here, are Mac-based. >> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart >> wrote: >> Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the >> National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, >> they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind >> people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more >> trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. >> >> I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen reader >> company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley Systems got >> shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while individuals might >> like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist on Windows machines >> for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to them. >> >> Bryan >> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: >> >> > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at >> > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers >> > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why >> > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the >> > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it >> > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a >> > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without >> > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be >> > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their >> > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax >> > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what >> > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market >> > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and >> > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. >> > I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 >> > to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest >> > majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby >> > boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for >> > the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind >> > kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them >> > Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could >> > probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of >> > us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis >> > increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, >> > Anchorage, Alaska. >> > >> > >> > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: >> > >> > I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they >> > have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why >> > I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and >> > secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but >> > FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed >> > market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating >> > that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics >> > ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if >> > ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enough >> > of them to make it worth their while. There is a cell phone put out >> > by Capital Accessibility in Europe. I've seen one and it's no big >> > deal. The speech is great, but there is no camera, digital screen, or >> > anything that might ad a bit of a price to the phone. It's built like >> > a brick, but it is over $500 and though the speech is clear, it's very >> > robotic. Tell me that's not ridiculous? I don't know that agencies >> > are responsible for this one, but the phone is so tailored to our >> > needs that somebody will buy it. Not me. Granted, if more people >> > were learning braille and speech software as they were dealing with >> > macular degeneration, and there was a big enough demand for it, things >> > might come down a bit. That's great about the scanner. I'd better >> > stop typing now as I am misspelling more things than I am typing >> > correctly and am about to throw this keyboard, though it's not at fault. >> > >> > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: >> > >> >> With all due
Re: Economics and the Mac
at the risk of starting a blindness organization flame war, I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the national Federation of the blind supposedly did the blindest community harm in this area. I think rather than involve ourselves and dedicated finger-pointing, we might want to get back to focusing on the economics of using a Mac in the K-12 school system or not. As a student of educational technology. I find myself using what ever it's usable for the project given the requirements of the course at hand. What does that mean that means the following year for the coursework can be done best by using an Apple computer and it's going to get a good grade, you better believe I'm going to use it if the application and what's necessary to complete the project at hand requires a Windows-based solution only do that too. In other words what I'm getting at is many tools help us to achieve what we need to achieve given what the goal is and what the intent of the project is. Also pointing a finger at the screen reading vendors on the Windows side of the house probably isn't very productive either those people have a very tough road to deal with, as well as the developers at Apple. It boils down to simply this, we have and will always be looked at as second-class citizens in the technology world. There's just simply no way around it we are a minority. We will always be a minority, just a plea based on the way society looks at what they perceive our challenge is to really be. I hope that my concerns have gotten many on this list to stop and think automatically pointing a finger at a blindness organization again isn't good, I don't care whether Steve American Council of the blind, or the national Federation of the blind. I come to this list for Apple related technology suggestions not for political finger-pointing. I got to the continues I can always look elsewhere I don't need my blood pressure jerked around by people who just lose sight of what maybe this list is about. I'll leave the rest of this from a moderator. On Jun 23, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Chris Snyder wrote: > Hmm, The school system here in Arizona has always dealt with Apple. When I > was little, we had Apple 2E and 2GS computers, and when I got to high school, > we had the mac SE and other models. Now that my own children are in school, > they're learning on iMacs. Apple has always been involved with k-12 education > here. It's actually rather nice since I can help the kids with their computer > classes on the Mac. > As far as the libraries around town go, they're all PC based, especially in > the adaptive technology rooms where they keep the braille writers and > scanners and such. > As far as Microsoft trying to make a screen reader is concerned, once again, > the NFB shoots blind people without state help in the foot yet again. I would > always would rather not pay extra for adaptive tech, and indeed it's why I > got rid of all but one of the PC's in the house. > The more I see of the iPhone, the more excited I get over it, and the more I > actually consider switching to AT&T's evil empire. > Anyway, just my two cents. > > Friendly, > Chris > > On Jun 23, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Ricardo Walker wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. It >> really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. >> On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: >> >>> In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high >>> school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around >>> here, are Mac-based. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart >>> wrote: >>> Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the >>> National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, >>> they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind >>> people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more >>> trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. >>> >>> I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen >>> reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley >>> Systems got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while >>> individuals might like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist >>> on Windows machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to >>> them. >>> >>> Bryan >>> >>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: >>> >>> > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at >>> > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers >>> > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why >>> > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the >>> > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it >>> > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a >>> > mechan
Re: Economics and the Mac
Hmm, The school system here in Arizona has always dealt with Apple. When I was little, we had Apple 2E and 2GS computers, and when I got to high school, we had the mac SE and other models. Now that my own children are in school, they're learning on iMacs. Apple has always been involved with k-12 education here. It's actually rather nice since I can help the kids with their computer classes on the Mac. As far as the libraries around town go, they're all PC based, especially in the adaptive technology rooms where they keep the braille writers and scanners and such. As far as Microsoft trying to make a screen reader is concerned, once again, the NFB shoots blind people without state help in the foot yet again. I would always would rather not pay extra for adaptive tech, and indeed it's why I got rid of all but one of the PC's in the house. The more I see of the iPhone, the more excited I get over it, and the more I actually consider switching to AT&T's evil empire. Anyway, just my two cents. Friendly, Chris On Jun 23, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Ricardo Walker wrote: > Hi, > > I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. It > really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. > On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: > >> In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high >> school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around >> here, are Mac-based. >> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart >> wrote: >> Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the >> National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, >> they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind >> people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more >> trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. >> >> I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen reader >> company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley Systems got >> shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while individuals might >> like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist on Windows machines >> for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to them. >> >> Bryan >> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: >> >> > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at >> > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers >> > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why >> > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the >> > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it >> > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a >> > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without >> > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be >> > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their >> > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax >> > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what >> > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market >> > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and >> > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. >> > I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 >> > to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest >> > majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby >> > boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for >> > the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind >> > kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them >> > Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could >> > probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of >> > us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis >> > increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, >> > Anchorage, Alaska. >> > >> > >> > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: >> > >> > I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they >> > have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why >> > I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and >> > secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but >> > FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed >> > market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating >> > that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics >> > ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if >> > ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enough >> > of them to make it worth their while. There is a cell phone put out >> > by Capital Accessibility in Europe. I've seen one and it's no big
RE: Economics and the Mac
That's great, but they are anomalies. I currently live in South Carolina. One of my income sources involves taking AT training contracts from school systems. I'm one of the few people around here that is setup to train on VoiceOver. The main reason for me being so unique in that regard is there are practically no clients, and so I'm the only one that bothers with it. Not one school system in South Carolina uses Macs. No school systems in Georgia use Macs. In North Carolina, a few Macs are present, at a few schools, for special labs/projects. I've been told recently that Florida, also, doesn't use any Macs, though I don't work there, so don't claim to know the purchasing decisions and politics. What the schools have, though, are thousands and thousands of Windows-based PCs, and over 90% of the ones that are adapted for a blind student use Jaws. I'm sure any number of people, particularly on a list like this, can pipe up and say "well, I know of a school district around where I live that has or uses some Macs". Those are special cases, though. The country is huge, and places like that are rare when you realize how every place else is swimming in Windows PCs. A single school district can own thousands of them. When our blind services undertakes projects to train and place the general blind population in to jobs, it always involves call center or office work, and Macs are no where to be found. Our Commission for the Blind just recently bought their first Mac, ever, for someone that needed it for a home-based business. That means, of all the blind people that they've ever served, they've purchased thousands of Windows computers, but never a Mac, and, when a person got one, it was for something they were doing on their own, not mainstreamed. I was contacted because I was someone that knows something about Macs. Most of the AT and IT people there don't know anything about Macs, because they don't have to; they're neither needed, nor requested. Obviously, I like my Mac. Don't be fooled though. Just because some schools here or there might use them, their use in schools over-all is a drop in the bucket. There use in business is practically nonexistent. The blindness agencies are concerned with getting blind people employed and/or educated. Finding a Mac in either school or work is a rare event, so, Macs are irrelevant to them. That's why the NFB and the screen reader manufacturers didn't care that Apple worked on a screen reader. In there minds, Apple can make the best one in the world, and it won't matter, because all of the edutainment and business applications that are used by the mainstream world are on Windows, so blind people will need Windows for school and work, so Windows-based screen readers will be necessary. It isn't about which is better. Bryan -Original Message- From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rob Lambert Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:41 AM To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around here, are Mac-based. On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart wrote: Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley Systems got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while individuals might like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist on Windows machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to them. Bryan On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their > economic dolars
Re: Economics and the Mac
Hi, I don't mean to be harsh but, your local school system is the minority. It really has no baring on Bryan's original comment. On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: > In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high > school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around > here, are Mac-based. > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart > wrote: > Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the > National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, > they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind > people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more > trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. > > I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen reader > company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley Systems got > shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while individuals might > like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist on Windows machines > for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to them. > > Bryan > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > > > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at > > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers > > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why > > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the > > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it > > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a > > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without > > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be > > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their > > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax > > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what > > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market > > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and > > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. > > I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 > > to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest > > majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby > > boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for > > the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind > > kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them > > Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could > > probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of > > us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis > > increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, > > Anchorage, Alaska. > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: > > > > I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they > > have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why > > I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and > > secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but > > FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed > > market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating > > that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics > > ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if > > ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enough > > of them to make it worth their while. There is a cell phone put out > > by Capital Accessibility in Europe. I've seen one and it's no big > > deal. The speech is great, but there is no camera, digital screen, or > > anything that might ad a bit of a price to the phone. It's built like > > a brick, but it is over $500 and though the speech is clear, it's very > > robotic. Tell me that's not ridiculous? I don't know that agencies > > are responsible for this one, but the phone is so tailored to our > > needs that somebody will buy it. Not me. Granted, if more people > > were learning braille and speech software as they were dealing with > > macular degeneration, and there was a big enough demand for it, things > > might come down a bit. That's great about the scanner. I'd better > > stop typing now as I am misspelling more things than I am typing > > correctly and am about to throw this keyboard, though it's not at fault. > > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > > > >> With all due respect, that argument has been used time and time > >> again. To that, I say this: the best example of a product that has > >> gone down in price because of the acceptance of it by the sighted > >> community, is the optical scanner, which was originally intended for > >
Re: Economics and the Mac
In regards to your academia comment, the public school system, my high school's library, as well as mobile labs & many elementary schools around here, are Mac-based. On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Bryan Smart wrote: > Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the > National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, > they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind > people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more > trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. > > I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen > reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley Systems > got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while individuals > might like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist on Windows > machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to them. > > Bryan > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > > > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at > > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers > > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why > > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the > > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it > > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a > > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without > > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be > > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their > > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax > > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what > > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market > > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and > > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. > > I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 > > to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest > > majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby > > boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for > > the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind > > kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them > > Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could > > probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of > > us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis > > increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, > > Anchorage, Alaska. > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: > > > > I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they > > have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why > > I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and > > secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but > > FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed > > market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating > > that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics > > ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if > > ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enough > > of them to make it worth their while. There is a cell phone put out > > by Capital Accessibility in Europe. I've seen one and it's no big > > deal. The speech is great, but there is no camera, digital screen, or > > anything that might ad a bit of a price to the phone. It's built like > > a brick, but it is over $500 and though the speech is clear, it's very > > robotic. Tell me that's not ridiculous? I don't know that agencies > > are responsible for this one, but the phone is so tailored to our > > needs that somebody will buy it. Not me. Granted, if more people > > were learning braille and speech software as they were dealing with > > macular degeneration, and there was a big enough demand for it, things > > might come down a bit. That's great about the scanner. I'd better > > stop typing now as I am misspelling more things than I am typing > > correctly and am about to throw this keyboard, though it's not at fault. > > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > > > >> With all due respect, that argument has been used time and time > >> again. To that, I say this: the best example of a product that has > >> gone down in price because of the acceptance of it by the sighted > >> community, is the optical scanner, which was originally intended for > >> use by the blind for scanning newspapers, magazines, and othr > >> documents in their computers or reading machines. Back then, you had > >> to pay thousands of dolars for the machine, and ys, state agencies
RE: Economics and the Mac
Microsoft tried to make a full screen reader over 10 years ago. Between the National Federation of the Blind, and the various screen reader companies, they were threatened with all sorts of vocally loud press for putting blind people out of work at the AT companies. MS decided that hot potato was more trouble than it was worth, and dropped the project. I guess Apple didn't get the same treatment since there was no screen reader company to put out of business, unless you count how Berkeley Systems got shafted, and most of the blindness orgs know that, while individuals might like Macs, business and academia will continue to insist on Windows machines for a long time to come. Macs are mostly irrelevant to them. Bryan On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. > I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 > to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest > majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby > boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for > the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind > kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them > Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could > probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of > us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis > increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, > Anchorage, Alaska. > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: > > I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they > have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why > I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and > secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but > FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed > market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating > that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics > ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if > ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enough > of them to make it worth their while. There is a cell phone put out > by Capital Accessibility in Europe. I've seen one and it's no big > deal. The speech is great, but there is no camera, digital screen, or > anything that might ad a bit of a price to the phone. It's built like > a brick, but it is over $500 and though the speech is clear, it's very > robotic. Tell me that's not ridiculous? I don't know that agencies > are responsible for this one, but the phone is so tailored to our > needs that somebody will buy it. Not me. Granted, if more people > were learning braille and speech software as they were dealing with > macular degeneration, and there was a big enough demand for it, things > might come down a bit. That's great about the scanner. I'd better > stop typing now as I am misspelling more things than I am typing > correctly and am about to throw this keyboard, though it's not at fault. > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > >> With all due respect, that argument has been used time and time >> again. To that, I say this: the best example of a product that has >> gone down in price because of the acceptance of it by the sighted >> community, is the optical scanner, which was originally intended for >> use by the blind for scanning newspapers, magazines, and othr >> documents in their computers or reading machines. Back then, you had >> to pay thousands of dolars for the machine, and ys, state agencies >> bought it for us, if we were lucky. Now, one can buy a scanner and >> to a certain extent, software for scanning pictures, text, and other >> document forms into one's PC, at a fraction of the cost it was in the >> 1970's. The point here is that it found a marketable niche among the >> sighted community, and once they were mass-produced, prices started >>
Re: Economics and the Mac
The largest contract available to the blindness industry is the Veterans Administration; then on second tier come state agencies. On third tier are all of the educational establishments that end up having to comply with Section 508 and other Sections like 504 and finally After that are the self-funded pioneers who sometimes end up adding value to the products that didn't originally exist when the products left the factories.On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richie Gardenhire wrote: I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market is because they have contracted with some state agencies and government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, Anchorage, Alaska. On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enough of them to make it worth their while. There is a cell phone put out by Capital Accessibility in Europe. I've seen one and it's no big deal. The speech is great, but there is no camera, digital screen, or anything that might ad a bit of a price to the phone. It's built like a brick, but it is over $500 and though the speech is clear, it's very robotic. Tell me that's not ridiculous? I don't know that agencies are responsible for this one, but the phone is so tailored to our needs that somebody will buy it. Not me. Granted, if more people were learning braille and speech software as they were dealing with macular degeneration, and there was a big enough demand for it, things might come down a bit. That's great about the scanner. I'd better stop typing now as I am misspelling more things than I am typing correctly and am about to throw this keyboard, though it's not at fault. On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: With all due respect, that argument has been used time and time again. To that, I say this: the best example of a product that has gone down in price because of the acceptance of it by the sighted community, is the optical scanner, which was originally intended for use by the blind for scanning newspapers, magazines, and othr documents in their computers or reading machines. Back then, you had to pay thousands of dolars for the machine, and ys, state agencies bought it for us, if we were lucky. Now, one can buy a scanner and to a certain extent, software for scanning pictures, text, and other document forms into one's PC, at a fraction of the cost it was in the 1970's. The point here is that it found a marketable niche among the sighted community, and once they were mass-produced, prices started coming down and people could afford said scanners. While braille displays are another issue, there are companies who are working to make even displays more affordable and accepting to the universal design market. In the 1980's, Apple tried an experiment, using an ordinary, dot matrix printer, to produce braille. It wasn't the best quality braille, but it was an experiment that, had it been popular, might have flown. Richie Gardenhi
Re: Economics and the Mac
> Lynn Schneider wrote: > > I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never > forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just > turn the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to > blame > for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to > blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot > water. > I just got my Mac on Thursday. I use it extensively for e-mail now, and love the way it works. I'll never ever buy JFW again. If I need PC screen reader access, I'll use Window-Eyes or System Access. If I need to use PC stuff, I'll set up a virtual machine on my mac. If blind people wish to use a platform in which they need sighted help to set up, that's their choice. I choose not to do so! Matt Roberts n9gmr...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
Chris, unfortunately, I think your correct. It's going to take a long long time if ever to really make an impact on Freedoms business. It's amazing just how arrogant they are, and, I guess, for now, they can afford to be. On Dec 3, 2009, at 6:23 AM, Chris Hofstader wrote: > The Fs sales strategy is designed to primarily get a lot of multi-user sales > and let their coattails drag along the individuals. We would talk about how > GW lives on single users and, for all we cared, those people could get > Window-Eyes. > > On a per seat basis, a single user is more expensive in terms of support and > other overhead costs which, if you sell a pile of units to an agency to dole > out to its clients, the publisher can save a lot as the agency provides first > line support. > > So, the occasional individual who drifts away from JAWS is replaced by 20 or > more at an agency somewhere. FS does not refuse any sales but does focus on > the bigger deals at which they are expert in getting on board. > > I don't know how many people we have on MacVisionaries, MacVoiceOver, viphone > and any other vision impairment oriented Macintosh lists but all of us are > out in the vanguard. We took the risk of adopting a newer technology with a > minimal history. If you talk to most JAWS users, they are not likely to ever > have heard of VO and, to their ends, don't even want to think about an > alternative to JAWS because they can't be bothered with making a switch. > > People who hang out on these users lists are an odd lot (I include myself in > the gang of the weird here) as we spend more time thinking about our AT than > is anywhere similar to "normal" people who only really notice when their > screen reader breaks or their SMA comes up for renewal. Our "gang" really > cares enough to spend a lot of time thinking about these questions but most > people don't. > > It will take a big shift in the perceptions and economics of screen access > tools and AT in general to threaten JAWS in any substantive manner. As I > wrote a couple of days ago, GW had a good shot in 2000 - 2001 but blew the > opportunity so magnificently that it clearly boggles the mind and makes one > wonder if they actually want to compete. > > cdh > On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:19 PM, John G. Him wrote: > >> Well, I wasn't actually arguing that voiceover and nvda are going to drive >> FS out of business. If FS isn't being challenged in any significant way by >> these free screen readers, it only supports my original assertion that the >> NFB logic was flawed. >> >> I don't know if FS is being pressured by nvda and voiceover but they lost >> out on at least one sale because of voiceover. I bought a Mac for home use >> instead of a Windows PC . I doubt that I'm the only one who has done that. I >> have linux on my laptop so that's another sale they missed out on in a way. >> And while right now I have a Pac Mate, next time I'll probably go with an >> Iphone. >> >> I don't know... Maybe FS can afford to lose all that business as long as I >> still have jaws on my work computer. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Chris Hofstader" >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:27 PM >> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >> >> >> I can assure you, FS is feeling no pressure from either VO or NVDA and only >> a tiny bit of pressure from System Access. Window-Eyes will continue to see >> their share decrease slowly but will maintain a slow growth in numbers of >> units sold as the market continues to expand annually. >> >> There is absolutely no evidence that FS is feeling pressure from any other >> screen reader. I do think that BrailleNote is beating PAC Mate pretty >> solidly and that OpenBook trails K1000 more and more each year but it will >> require a major tectonic shift to knock JAWS down a notch in global share. >> >> VO doesn't even try to work in many multi-byte languages like Japanese, >> Arabic, various Chinese writing systems and probably a few I can't think of >> right now. If you take a look at how programs called input method editors >> (IME) work, you'll understand the incredible complexity a screen reader must >> overcome to give the user reasonable feedback during input. >> >> FS sells more than half of JAWS units outside the US and is in far more >> languages than anyone else with Dolphin coming in second. Any screen reader >> can do a decent job in the Western European languages and writing systems &
Re: Economics and the Mac
widget you could just use the google dashboard widget, f12, and there you are then. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
I have an MBP15 with the glass track pad, and I was under the impression I could use gestures and the commander with it, but I haven't gotten SL yet, am still using the same old spotted kitty. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
I asked the same of friends of mine in the Apple accessibility team and they said that there were no trackpads that will work properly with TrackpadCommander that they knew about. Most third party trackpads need drivers that mess up VO. The new Magic Mouse is, in my not at all humble opinion, useless for people with vision impairment. I haven't tried the iPhone app but suspect it will act a bit strangely with VO just because it communicates by wifi which may be at a higher level than where VO gets its data. So far, the only thing that Apple sells that works with TrackpadCommander is the MacBook line of laptops. cdh On Dec 3, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Krister Ekstrom wrote: > Ok, before i say something silly here, let me ask a question, can a user of > an old Imac like me in any way use the trackpad commander? There is > apparently some kind of app for the iphone, but can that really compare to > using a real track pad? There's no separate trackpad as far as i know, or am > i wrong here? > /Krister > > > 3 dec 2009 kl. 13.45 skrev Chris Hofstader: > >> The combination of the spatial information provided by object navigation and >> that one gets in Trackpad Commander provides the most comprehensive step >> forward in making an efficient UI since FS put the virtual cursor mode for >> navigating Internet information back in JAWS 3.31 (1999). >> >> With a bit of practice understanding the spatial information also provides >> one with a greater level of understanding of contextual relationships >> between objects, something that is either very ard or entirely impossible in >> all Windows screen readers other than NVDA. >> >> Counting keystrokes is so 2008, using the trackpad to navigate in 2 >> dimensions saves a huge amount of time because, as one becomes more familiar >> with an application they can jump directly to the control they are looking >> for without all of the tabs or whatever they had previously used. The >> iPhone proved the concept and, in the current VO, it was taken to much >> greater heights. >> >> Happy Hacking, >> cdh >> >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 4:18 PM, James & Nash wrote: >> >>> Hi John, >>> >>>> You wrote; >>>> Plus, it would seem to me that if you can use the jaws cursor to get >>>> something done, that's a point in favor of jaws, not against it. >>> >>> Whilst the JAWS cursor does indeed have many uses, there are occasions >>> where the object navigation approach as used by NVDA, Orca and VO yield >>> better results. For example, a while back, I was using NVDA with Outlook >>> Express, and whilst I was navigating the window, I came across some buttons >>> that I had not been aware of before. Intrigued, I tired to accomplish the >>> same task with JFW and found that these buttons were invisible to the JAWS >>> cursor. >>> >>> Also, as I said before object navigation provides us with an idea of how a >>> screen looks to sighted people, which is a big plus in my opinion as I have >>> often wondered - or need to know how things are laid out on the screen. >>> >>> TC >>> >>> James >>> On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:24, John G. Heim wrote: >>> >>>> Well, given your examples I don't know how you can say that jaws misses >>>> more >>>> than voiceover. You've given 3 significant examples of things voiceover >>>> misses and just one fairly obscure thing for jaws and windows. >>>> >>>> Plus, it would seem to me that if you can use the jaws cursor to get >>>> something done, that's a point in favor of jaws, not against it. >>>> >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Chris Hofstader" >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:35 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >>>> >>>> >>>> I actually think VO provides much better support for the stuff that ships >>>> installed on a Macintosh than JAWS does with a lot of the Windows stuff. >>>> VO >>>> may miss a few things (I find TimeMachine restores pretty hard to use with >>>> VO and Spaces is far from obvious with VO) but JAWS still doesn't work >>>> with >>>> the built-in dictation program and misses a whole lot of stuff in a lot of >>>> Windows utilities - sure, an expert user can get at stuff using the JAWS >>>> Cursor and by writing scripts but, out-of-t
Re: Economics and the Mac
Ok, before i say something silly here, let me ask a question, can a user of an old Imac like me in any way use the trackpad commander? There is apparently some kind of app for the iphone, but can that really compare to using a real track pad? There's no separate trackpad as far as i know, or am i wrong here? /Krister 3 dec 2009 kl. 13.45 skrev Chris Hofstader: > The combination of the spatial information provided by object navigation and > that one gets in Trackpad Commander provides the most comprehensive step > forward in making an efficient UI since FS put the virtual cursor mode for > navigating Internet information back in JAWS 3.31 (1999). > > With a bit of practice understanding the spatial information also provides > one with a greater level of understanding of contextual relationships between > objects, something that is either very ard or entirely impossible in all > Windows screen readers other than NVDA. > > Counting keystrokes is so 2008, using the trackpad to navigate in 2 > dimensions saves a huge amount of time because, as one becomes more familiar > with an application they can jump directly to the control they are looking > for without all of the tabs or whatever they had previously used. The iPhone > proved the concept and, in the current VO, it was taken to much greater > heights. > > Happy Hacking, > cdh > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 4:18 PM, James & Nash wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >>> You wrote; >>> Plus, it would seem to me that if you can use the jaws cursor to get >>> something done, that's a point in favor of jaws, not against it. >> >> Whilst the JAWS cursor does indeed have many uses, there are occasions where >> the object navigation approach as used by NVDA, Orca and VO yield better >> results. For example, a while back, I was using NVDA with Outlook Express, >> and whilst I was navigating the window, I came across some buttons that I >> had not been aware of before. Intrigued, I tired to accomplish the same task >> with JFW and found that these buttons were invisible to the JAWS cursor. >> >> Also, as I said before object navigation provides us with an idea of how a >> screen looks to sighted people, which is a big plus in my opinion as I have >> often wondered - or need to know how things are laid out on the screen. >> >> TC >> >> James >> On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:24, John G. Heim wrote: >> >>> Well, given your examples I don't know how you can say that jaws misses >>> more >>> than voiceover. You've given 3 significant examples of things voiceover >>> misses and just one fairly obscure thing for jaws and windows. >>> >>> Plus, it would seem to me that if you can use the jaws cursor to get >>> something done, that's a point in favor of jaws, not against it. >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Chris Hofstader" >>> To: >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:35 PM >>> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >>> >>> >>> I actually think VO provides much better support for the stuff that ships >>> installed on a Macintosh than JAWS does with a lot of the Windows stuff. >>> VO >>> may miss a few things (I find TimeMachine restores pretty hard to use with >>> VO and Spaces is far from obvious with VO) but JAWS still doesn't work with >>> the built-in dictation program and misses a whole lot of stuff in a lot of >>> Windows utilities - sure, an expert user can get at stuff using the JAWS >>> Cursor and by writing scripts but, out-of-the-box, VO gets far more of the >>> basic Macintosh stuff right than JAWS does with Windows. >>> >>> Also, the Trackpad Commander provides a wholly new and very exciting way >>> for >>> a blind user to navigate that, when people get used to it, will improve >>> efficiency enormously while JAWS remains in the unidimensional world of a >>> long list of semantic blips. >>> >>> cdh >>> cdh >>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Scott Howell wrote: >>> >>>> And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. >>>> However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both >>>> windows and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, >>>> which are much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have >>>> never used JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm >>>> not interested i
Re: Economics and the Mac
*whimper* I have *GOT* to get SL. Mark BurningHawk Baxter AIM, Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com My home page: http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
On some machines, like my spanking new MacBook Pro for instance, F4 (or if you've set up function keys for software, FN+F4) also brings up the dashboard. It's interesting to note that my old macBook has a couple keyboard differences. (This is the 2007, pre-Leopard MacBook, Core2 Duo 2.16 GHz, 2GB max memory). That machin had F3 for mute, F4 and F5 for volume down and up respectively, and F12 for dashboard. It also had an enter key next to the left arrow instead of a right option key. I'm not sure when the keyboards changed, but this machine has F4 for dashboard, F10 for mute, and f11 and F12 for volume down and up respectively. BTW, the speakers in the Pro seem a bit better than the ones in the old MacBook. -- Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
The combination of the spatial information provided by object navigation and that one gets in Trackpad Commander provides the most comprehensive step forward in making an efficient UI since FS put the virtual cursor mode for navigating Internet information back in JAWS 3.31 (1999). With a bit of practice understanding the spatial information also provides one with a greater level of understanding of contextual relationships between objects, something that is either very ard or entirely impossible in all Windows screen readers other than NVDA. Counting keystrokes is so 2008, using the trackpad to navigate in 2 dimensions saves a huge amount of time because, as one becomes more familiar with an application they can jump directly to the control they are looking for without all of the tabs or whatever they had previously used. The iPhone proved the concept and, in the current VO, it was taken to much greater heights. Happy Hacking, cdh On Dec 2, 2009, at 4:18 PM, James & Nash wrote: > Hi John, > >> You wrote; >> Plus, it would seem to me that if you can use the jaws cursor to get >> something done, that's a point in favor of jaws, not against it. > > Whilst the JAWS cursor does indeed have many uses, there are occasions where > the object navigation approach as used by NVDA, Orca and VO yield better > results. For example, a while back, I was using NVDA with Outlook Express, > and whilst I was navigating the window, I came across some buttons that I had > not been aware of before. Intrigued, I tired to accomplish the same task with > JFW and found that these buttons were invisible to the JAWS cursor. > > Also, as I said before object navigation provides us with an idea of how a > screen looks to sighted people, which is a big plus in my opinion as I have > often wondered - or need to know how things are laid out on the screen. > > TC > > James > On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:24, John G. Heim wrote: > >> Well, given your examples I don't know how you can say that jaws misses more >> than voiceover. You've given 3 significant examples of things voiceover >> misses and just one fairly obscure thing for jaws and windows. >> >> Plus, it would seem to me that if you can use the jaws cursor to get >> something done, that's a point in favor of jaws, not against it. >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Chris Hofstader" >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:35 PM >> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >> >> >> I actually think VO provides much better support for the stuff that ships >> installed on a Macintosh than JAWS does with a lot of the Windows stuff. VO >> may miss a few things (I find TimeMachine restores pretty hard to use with >> VO and Spaces is far from obvious with VO) but JAWS still doesn't work with >> the built-in dictation program and misses a whole lot of stuff in a lot of >> Windows utilities - sure, an expert user can get at stuff using the JAWS >> Cursor and by writing scripts but, out-of-the-box, VO gets far more of the >> basic Macintosh stuff right than JAWS does with Windows. >> >> Also, the Trackpad Commander provides a wholly new and very exciting way for >> a blind user to navigate that, when people get used to it, will improve >> efficiency enormously while JAWS remains in the unidimensional world of a >> long list of semantic blips. >> >> cdh >> cdh >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Scott Howell wrote: >> >>> And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. >>> However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both >>> windows and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, >>> which are much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have >>> never used JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm >>> not interested in learning something new since I can do what I need with >>> what I got. However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it >>> takes less keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is >>> perhaps one issue and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true >>> depending on the screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the >>> multitude of issues with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. >>> It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What >>> matters in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have >>> the tools to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree >>
Re: Economics and the Mac
I used the phrase, "JAWS misses a lot of stuff that comes with Windows..." and did not enumerate them because the list is too long. "A lot of stuff" means a lot of stuff which, in myy mind is greater than three items. Using the JAWS cursor is an acquired skill that most users are never taught or learn on their own. Also, while an expert user can do a bunch of things with the JAWS cursor and by writing scripts there are a whole lot of basic Windows utilities and the like where even these band-aid solutions will not work. Also, Macintosh/VO provides the Mouse Cursor an analogue of the JAWS cursor which is really helpful in some cases where other techniques fail so more advanced VO users have a similar tool as is available in JAWS. cdh On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:24 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > Well, given your examples I don't know how you can say that jaws misses more > than voiceover. You've given 3 significant examples of things voiceover > misses and just one fairly obscure thing for jaws and windows. > > Plus, it would seem to me that if you can use the jaws cursor to get > something done, that's a point in favor of jaws, not against it. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Chris Hofstader" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:35 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > I actually think VO provides much better support for the stuff that ships > installed on a Macintosh than JAWS does with a lot of the Windows stuff. VO > may miss a few things (I find TimeMachine restores pretty hard to use with > VO and Spaces is far from obvious with VO) but JAWS still doesn't work with > the built-in dictation program and misses a whole lot of stuff in a lot of > Windows utilities - sure, an expert user can get at stuff using the JAWS > Cursor and by writing scripts but, out-of-the-box, VO gets far more of the > basic Macintosh stuff right than JAWS does with Windows. > > Also, the Trackpad Commander provides a wholly new and very exciting way for > a blind user to navigate that, when people get used to it, will improve > efficiency enormously while JAWS remains in the unidimensional world of a > long list of semantic blips. > > cdh > cdh > On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Scott Howell wrote: > >> And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. >> However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both >> windows and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, >> which are much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have >> never used JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm >> not interested in learning something new since I can do what I need with >> what I got. However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it >> takes less keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is >> perhaps one issue and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true >> depending on the screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the >> multitude of issues with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. >> It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What >> matters in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have >> the tools to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree >> on. >> >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: >> >>> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they >>> are >>> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the >>> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, >>> consistency >>> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one >>> input >>> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of >>> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you >>> could >>> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have >>> to >>> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the >>> accessibility features come from as long as they work? >>> >>> Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your >>> contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is >>> incorrect. >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Scott Howell" >>> To: >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM >>> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >>> >>> >>> John, I think that is
Re: Economics and the Mac
The Fs sales strategy is designed to primarily get a lot of multi-user sales and let their coattails drag along the individuals. We would talk about how GW lives on single users and, for all we cared, those people could get Window-Eyes. On a per seat basis, a single user is more expensive in terms of support and other overhead costs which, if you sell a pile of units to an agency to dole out to its clients, the publisher can save a lot as the agency provides first line support. So, the occasional individual who drifts away from JAWS is replaced by 20 or more at an agency somewhere. FS does not refuse any sales but does focus on the bigger deals at which they are expert in getting on board. I don't know how many people we have on MacVisionaries, MacVoiceOver, viphone and any other vision impairment oriented Macintosh lists but all of us are out in the vanguard. We took the risk of adopting a newer technology with a minimal history. If you talk to most JAWS users, they are not likely to ever have heard of VO and, to their ends, don't even want to think about an alternative to JAWS because they can't be bothered with making a switch. People who hang out on these users lists are an odd lot (I include myself in the gang of the weird here) as we spend more time thinking about our AT than is anywhere similar to "normal" people who only really notice when their screen reader breaks or their SMA comes up for renewal. Our "gang" really cares enough to spend a lot of time thinking about these questions but most people don't. It will take a big shift in the perceptions and economics of screen access tools and AT in general to threaten JAWS in any substantive manner. As I wrote a couple of days ago, GW had a good shot in 2000 - 2001 but blew the opportunity so magnificently that it clearly boggles the mind and makes one wonder if they actually want to compete. cdh On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:19 PM, John G. Him wrote: > Well, I wasn't actually arguing that voiceover and nvda are going to drive > FS out of business. If FS isn't being challenged in any significant way by > these free screen readers, it only supports my original assertion that the > NFB logic was flawed. > > I don't know if FS is being pressured by nvda and voiceover but they lost > out on at least one sale because of voiceover. I bought a Mac for home use > instead of a Windows PC . I doubt that I'm the only one who has done that. I > have linux on my laptop so that's another sale they missed out on in a way. > And while right now I have a Pac Mate, next time I'll probably go with an > Iphone. > > I don't know... Maybe FS can afford to lose all that business as long as I > still have jaws on my work computer. > > - Original Message - > From: "Chris Hofstader" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:27 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > I can assure you, FS is feeling no pressure from either VO or NVDA and only > a tiny bit of pressure from System Access. Window-Eyes will continue to see > their share decrease slowly but will maintain a slow growth in numbers of > units sold as the market continues to expand annually. > > There is absolutely no evidence that FS is feeling pressure from any other > screen reader. I do think that BrailleNote is beating PAC Mate pretty > solidly and that OpenBook trails K1000 more and more each year but it will > require a major tectonic shift to knock JAWS down a notch in global share. > > VO doesn't even try to work in many multi-byte languages like Japanese, > Arabic, various Chinese writing systems and probably a few I can't think of > right now. If you take a look at how programs called input method editors > (IME) work, you'll understand the incredible complexity a screen reader must > overcome to give the user reasonable feedback during input. > > FS sells more than half of JAWS units outside the US and is in far more > languages than anyone else with Dolphin coming in second. Any screen reader > can do a decent job in the Western European languages and writing systems > but toss Japanese which can have four separate writing systems combined in a > single document plus lots of words that sound very similar but have terribly > different definitions and, unless the screen reader gets it right, a user > may tell his boss that he loves him very much and, with the same set of > phonemes but different glyphs, tell his wife that he wants to share an > umbrella with her. With help from IBM, we got JAWS to work pretty well in > Japanese and in the modern Chinese Mandarin writing system. Hal does a > pretty good job with the Microsoft IME but users still find them > accidental
RE: Economics and the Mac
F11=Dashboard? I'll have to try that on my wife's Mac. I don't own one, myself. -Original Message- From: carlene knight [mailto:carlenekni...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of carlene knight Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:46 PM To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac f12. On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:59 PM, Kevin Gibbs wrote: > What's the command to brinb up the dashboard again? > > > -Original Message- > From: Mark BurningHawk Baxter [mailto:markbaxte...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 3:14 PM > To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > Why not just do > for windows: > Alt CTRL I to bring up Explorer, which you've conveniently assigned to > that hot key and which conveniently comes up with Google as your home > page. > I don't recall what took the place of F for forms mode, but that's a > keystroke, enter your search term, enter. press H until you get to > heading level 3, search results... > > For the Mac, let's see. > Turn it oh, F11 for Dashboard, which you've conveniently assigned the > Google widget to come up, enter your search term, wait for it, then > use VO command H to scroll through headings. > > > Mark BurningHawk Baxter > > Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 > MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com > My home page: > http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to > macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send > email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to > macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send > email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
Sorry, I mean F12. Mark BurningHawk Baxter AIM, Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com My home page: http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
F11. Mark BurningHawk Baxter AIM, Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com My home page: http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
f12. On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:59 PM, Kevin Gibbs wrote: > What's the command to brinb up the dashboard again? > > > -Original Message- > From: Mark BurningHawk Baxter [mailto:markbaxte...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 3:14 PM > To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > Why not just do > for windows: > Alt CTRL I to bring up Explorer, which you've conveniently assigned to > that hot key and which conveniently comes up with Google as your home > page. > I don't recall what took the place of F for forms mode, but that's a > keystroke, enter your search term, enter. press H until you get to > heading level 3, search results... > > For the Mac, let's see. > Turn it oh, F11 for Dashboard, which you've conveniently assigned the > Google widget to come up, enter your search term, wait for it, then > use VO command H to scroll through headings. > > > Mark BurningHawk Baxter > > Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 > MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com > My home page: > http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to > macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email > to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
RE: Economics and the Mac
What's the command to brinb up the dashboard again? -Original Message- From: Mark BurningHawk Baxter [mailto:markbaxte...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 3:14 PM To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac Why not just do for windows: Alt CTRL I to bring up Explorer, which you've conveniently assigned to that hot key and which conveniently comes up with Google as your home page. I don't recall what took the place of F for forms mode, but that's a keystroke, enter your search term, enter. press H until you get to heading level 3, search results... For the Mac, let's see. Turn it oh, F11 for Dashboard, which you've conveniently assigned the Google widget to come up, enter your search term, wait for it, then use VO command H to scroll through headings. Mark BurningHawk Baxter Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com My home page: http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
I understand a lot of these are easier if one uses launchbar. Is launchbar working fairly well with Voice Over these days? I know that sighted macintosh hard core users find it almost essential at making their work efficient. Jon On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:02 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > Alright, I will accept Scott's original assertion that you can't > entirely > separate screen reader and operating system when judging efficiency. > But I > don't think it is really to the point anyway. Freedom Scientific added > hotkeys in places where the operating system is inefficient. For > example, > Insert+f11 brings up a list of the system tray icons. So if you > need to do > something like change your skype on-line status, you can get there > with a > minimum of keystrokes. > > It would be interesting to compare how many keystrokes it takes to do > certain common tasks in voiceover & MacOS vs jaws & windows. I already > posted on googling "wikipedia". Other ideas: > > 1. Send an email message > 2. Connect to a samba share > 3. Create a text file and save it to your desktop > > > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 12:55 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > >> Hi John, >> >> Just a very quick comment. I don't disagree with the some of the >> criteria that you're using such count of number of keystrokes to >> complete tasks to evaluate screen readers, and that ultimately things >> like the efficiency of operation come into play. However, I'd like >> to >> point out that a large number of the shortcuts, keystrokes etc, that >> we use for our day-to-day operations with VoiceOver are built into >> the >> Mac OS X operating system and not specific to VoiceOver. Just for a >> recent example, answers on how to download files by pressing Option- >> Enter is a Mac shortcut. Two of the problem questions we always have >> from potential switchers is where to find a list of all the VoiceOver >> shortcuts and is it possible to write scripts for this screen reader. >> The point is, we all make daily use of a huge number of shortcuts >> built into Mac OS X, both for all Cocoa Compliant apps (such as the >> movement and selection shortcuts), as well as the shortcuts specific >> to particular applications. Furthermore, scripting is also built >> into >> the operating system -- from basic shell scripting, in terminal, to >> AppleScripts, and even, to make things available to people without >> programming background, Automator actions. So, to a certain extent, >> Scott's statement that other issues of the Mac OS X operating system >> really do come into play in determining how efficiently overall >> someone can work with VoiceOver. Sure, I could teach somebody to >> read >> only the VoiceOver Getting Started Manual and follow only topics and >> examples covered there and work far less efficiently than I do from >> day to day by exploiting the other efficiencies in the Mac Operating >> system. As you say, ultimately, we all care about the results. >> >> Just my opinions. YMMV >> >> Cheers, >> >> Esther >> >> >> >> John G. Heim wrote: >> >>> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS >>> they are >>> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of >>> the >>> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, >>> consistency >>> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from >>> one input >>> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the >>> percentage of >>> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you >>> could >>> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you >>> have to >>> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where >>> the >>> accessibility features come from as long as they work? >>> >>> Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But >>> your >>> contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is >>> incorrect. >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Scott Howell" >>> To: >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM >>> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >>> >>> >>> John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver >>> is not >>> up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is
Re: Economics and the Mac
Hi John, > You wrote; > Plus, it would seem to me that if you can use the jaws cursor to get > something done, that's a point in favor of jaws, not against it. Whilst the JAWS cursor does indeed have many uses, there are occasions where the object navigation approach as used by NVDA, Orca and VO yield better results. For example, a while back, I was using NVDA with Outlook Express, and whilst I was navigating the window, I came across some buttons that I had not been aware of before. Intrigued, I tired to accomplish the same task with JFW and found that these buttons were invisible to the JAWS cursor. Also, as I said before object navigation provides us with an idea of how a screen looks to sighted people, which is a big plus in my opinion as I have often wondered - or need to know how things are laid out on the screen. TC James On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:24, John G. Heim wrote: > Well, given your examples I don't know how you can say that jaws misses more > than voiceover. You've given 3 significant examples of things voiceover > misses and just one fairly obscure thing for jaws and windows. > > Plus, it would seem to me that if you can use the jaws cursor to get > something done, that's a point in favor of jaws, not against it. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Chris Hofstader" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:35 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > I actually think VO provides much better support for the stuff that ships > installed on a Macintosh than JAWS does with a lot of the Windows stuff. VO > may miss a few things (I find TimeMachine restores pretty hard to use with > VO and Spaces is far from obvious with VO) but JAWS still doesn't work with > the built-in dictation program and misses a whole lot of stuff in a lot of > Windows utilities - sure, an expert user can get at stuff using the JAWS > Cursor and by writing scripts but, out-of-the-box, VO gets far more of the > basic Macintosh stuff right than JAWS does with Windows. > > Also, the Trackpad Commander provides a wholly new and very exciting way for > a blind user to navigate that, when people get used to it, will improve > efficiency enormously while JAWS remains in the unidimensional world of a > long list of semantic blips. > > cdh > cdh > On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Scott Howell wrote: > >> And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. >> However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both >> windows and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, >> which are much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have >> never used JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm >> not interested in learning something new since I can do what I need with >> what I got. However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it >> takes less keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is >> perhaps one issue and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true >> depending on the screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the >> multitude of issues with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. >> It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What >> matters in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have >> the tools to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree >> on. >> >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: >> >>> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they >>> are >>> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the >>> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, >>> consistency >>> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one >>> input >>> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of >>> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you >>> could >>> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have >>> to >>> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the >>> accessibility features come from as long as they work? >>> >>> Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your >>> contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is >>> incorrect. >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Scott Howell" >>> To: >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM >>> Su
Re: Economics and the Mac
Why not just do for windows: Alt CTRL I to bring up Explorer, which you've conveniently assigned to that hot key and which conveniently comes up with Google as your home page. I don't recall what took the place of F for forms mode, but that's a keystroke, enter your search term, enter. press H until you get to heading level 3, search results... For the Mac, let's see. Turn it oh, F11 for Dashboard, which you've conveniently assigned the Google widget to come up, enter your search term, wait for it, then use VO command H to scroll through headings. Mark BurningHawk Baxter Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com My home page: http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
John, I think in the end you'll find that with either OS or screen reader, some tasks will take more keystrokes than others and dependent upon the task etc. It is an interesting discussion, but to be honest, the familiarity with the OS and screen reader will determine efficiency as well. As I said, regardless, in the end what matters is if you get the job done. That will make all the difference no matter the platform or screen reader. I think some would even argue the efficiency of the command line interface on Linux/Unix. I knew people that could really do a great deal very efficiently with just a shell prompt. :) On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:02 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > Alright, I will accept Scott's original assertion that you can't entirely > separate screen reader and operating system when judging efficiency. But I > don't think it is really to the point anyway. Freedom Scientific added > hotkeys in places where the operating system is inefficient. For example, > Insert+f11 brings up a list of the system tray icons. So if you need to do > something like change your skype on-line status, you can get there with a > minimum of keystrokes. > > It would be interesting to compare how many keystrokes it takes to do > certain common tasks in voiceover & MacOS vs jaws & windows. I already > posted on googling "wikipedia". Other ideas: > > 1. Send an email message > 2. Connect to a samba share > 3. Create a text file and save it to your desktop > > > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 12:55 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > >> Hi John, >> >> Just a very quick comment. I don't disagree with the some of the >> criteria that you're using such count of number of keystrokes to >> complete tasks to evaluate screen readers, and that ultimately things >> like the efficiency of operation come into play. However, I'd like to >> point out that a large number of the shortcuts, keystrokes etc, that >> we use for our day-to-day operations with VoiceOver are built into the >> Mac OS X operating system and not specific to VoiceOver. Just for a >> recent example, answers on how to download files by pressing Option- >> Enter is a Mac shortcut. Two of the problem questions we always have >> from potential switchers is where to find a list of all the VoiceOver >> shortcuts and is it possible to write scripts for this screen reader. >> The point is, we all make daily use of a huge number of shortcuts >> built into Mac OS X, both for all Cocoa Compliant apps (such as the >> movement and selection shortcuts), as well as the shortcuts specific >> to particular applications. Furthermore, scripting is also built into >> the operating system -- from basic shell scripting, in terminal, to >> AppleScripts, and even, to make things available to people without >> programming background, Automator actions. So, to a certain extent, >> Scott's statement that other issues of the Mac OS X operating system >> really do come into play in determining how efficiently overall >> someone can work with VoiceOver. Sure, I could teach somebody to read >> only the VoiceOver Getting Started Manual and follow only topics and >> examples covered there and work far less efficiently than I do from >> day to day by exploiting the other efficiencies in the Mac Operating >> system. As you say, ultimately, we all care about the results. >> >> Just my opinions. YMMV >> >> Cheers, >> >> Esther >> >> >> >> John G. Heim wrote: >> >>> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS >>> they are >>> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of >>> the >>> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, >>> consistency >>> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from >>> one input >>> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the >>> percentage of >>> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you >>> could >>> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you >>> have to >>> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where >>> the >>> accessibility features come from as long as they work? >>> >>> Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your >>> contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is >>> incorrect. >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Scott Howe
Re: Economics and the Mac
Actually Chris it is also necessary to point out that from all I have read, Excel and Numbers are both spreadsheet programs, but apparently Apple has a pretty different approach and mindset where spreadsheets are concerned. I think that does have something to do with the issue as well. I'm also hoping they will address this as well because Numbers really could be a useful program. On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Chris Hofstader wrote: > Tables is quite usable in relatively simple situations but nothing like the > powerhouse that JAWS is in Excel. VO provides virtually no efficiency > augmentations so a user needs to poke around looking for cells with data and > then figure out what they mean as there is no facility for announcing row or > column headers in a spreadsheet. If there is more than one table on a sheet, > a VO user has no way of knowing (without memorization) which data set they > are reading and, perhaps, wanting to modify. VO in all spreadsheets is > roughly the equal of what JAWS and WE were doing in Excel in 1998 and they've > both improved a real lot since. > > As I said, I find most things much more comfortable on a Macintosh with VO > but spreadsheets are definitely not one of them. > > cdh > On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:24 PM, carlene knight wrote: > >> I have no personal experience with the following , but somebody on another >> list I belong to like a program call Tables for this purpose. Currently I >> don't work with tables but thought this might be of interest. I may be way >> off the mark. >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Chris Hofstader wrote: >> >>> If you don't like JAWS in spreadsheets then you will hate Macintosh in >>> similar programs. >>> >>> JAWS provides a ton of semantically interesting ways to navigate in Excel. >>> You can get lists of cells with data, set row and column headings and have >>> them follow you to files with similar titles, have multiple "regions" on a >>> sheet with multiple tables, read the data in charts and graphs, do all >>> sorts of interesting things on a braille line to optimize use of that >>> expensive real estate, etc. Just hit JAWSKEY+V to bring up the verbosity >>> dialogue or pop up JAWS hot key help for Excel and you'll find dozens of >>> features unavailable in any other screen reader although Window-Eyes is >>> catching up in spite of FS hitting them with a patent suit regarding >>> augmented information in a spreadsheet. >>> >>> I didn't know about these buttons in cells but I'd bet if you can access >>> them through VB script then you can get at them with a slight change to the >>> JAWS scripts. If you look into the VB object model for Excel and find this >>> item, send it to Eric Damery at FS and he'll probably get it into the Excel >>> scripts very quickly. >>> >>> The web 2.0 stuff, if it follows the Aria guidelines (you can find it at >>> www.w3c.org/wai) actually work quite good with JAWS but far less well with >>> all other screen readers. Because there are official guidelines, it >>> shouldn't be too hard for the other screen access tools to catch up but, as >>> is often the case, FS got IBM to pay them big time consulting dollars to >>> add Aria support to JAWS so they could deploy some stuff and have an >>> accessibility solution ripe and ready. >>> >>> Overall, I find the Macintosh to provide a really superior experience but >>> it has its limitations. One could probably add features very similar to >>> the cool stuff JAWS does in excel to VO plus OpenOffice using any number of >>> interesting techniques but it would take a pretty solid screen reader >>> hacker with an understanding of the guts of both VO and OO to pull it off >>> and, sadly, I don't think there are too many people really diving into the >>> hardcore technical side of Macintosh accessibility who do not work for >>> Apple. >>> >>> cdh >>> >>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:52 AM, John W. Carty wrote: >>> >>>> Could you please discuss spreadsheet limits using vo in more detail. I'm >>>> struggling to make the move to a mac and I use a lot of spreadsheets. >>>> >>>> I work in an environment that uses a lot of spreadsheets and I've always >>>> been disappointed with jaws support for excel. In a professional >>>> environment I encounter spreadsheets almost daily that uses vba buttons &g
Re: Economics and the Mac
And on that note it is also worth pointing out that sighted users have also complained about Spaces for many of the same reasons we have. On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:44 PM, James & Nash wrote: > Hi Chris, > > You wrote: >> Spaces is far from obvious with VO) > > This is because Spaces is conceptually broken. You can't imagine the times > I've E-Mailed Apple trying to explain why this is and waht an excellent > feature this would be if it only worked as it should. > > TC > > James > On 2 Dec 2009, at 19:35, Chris Hofstader wrote: > >> I actually think VO provides much better support for the stuff that ships >> installed on a Macintosh than JAWS does with a lot of the Windows stuff. VO >> may miss a few things (I find TimeMachine restores pretty hard to use with >> VO and Spaces is far from obvious with VO) but JAWS still doesn't work with >> the built-in dictation program and misses a whole lot of stuff in a lot of >> Windows utilities - sure, an expert user can get at stuff using the JAWS >> Cursor and by writing scripts but, out-of-the-box, VO gets far more of the >> basic Macintosh stuff right than JAWS does with Windows. >> >> Also, the Trackpad Commander provides a wholly new and very exciting way for >> a blind user to navigate that, when people get used to it, will improve >> efficiency enormously while JAWS remains in the unidimensional world of a >> long list of semantic blips. >> >> cdh >> cdh >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Scott Howell wrote: >> >>> And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. >>> However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both windows >>> and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, which are >>> much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have never used >>> JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm not interested >>> in learning something new since I can do what I need with what I got. >>> However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it takes less >>> keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is perhaps one issue >>> and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true depending on the >>> screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the multitude of issues >>> with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. >>> It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What matters >>> in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have the tools >>> to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree on. >>> >>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: >>> >>>> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they >>>> are >>>> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the >>>> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, consistency >>>> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one >>>> input >>>> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of >>>> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you could >>>> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have to >>>> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the >>>> accessibility features come from as long as they work? >>>> >>>> Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your >>>> contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is incorrect. >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Scott Howell" >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >>>> >>>> >>>> John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver is >>>> not >>>> up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing >>>> windows >>>> and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are very >>>> different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, >>>> Window-Eyes, and any screen reader running on windows or Linux for that >>>> matter. They are all screen readers, like windows or SL share some >>>> similarities, but VoiceOver and JAWS for windows are very different. >>>> The
Re: Economics and the Mac
Very interesting test and here are my results. 1 Launch browser with 3 keystrokes = control-f3 s for Safari press enter . 2. immediately type URL 3. for search term begin typing (requires no keystroke) 4. two key strokes three times to reach the third heading for first match . 5. One keystroke to click link One advantage in the case of using Safari is step two can be removed as there is a search field available when Safari is launched and you do not have a specific home page loaded. I have Safari load with a blank page which provides the Google search field and a couple of other items. You know something sticks in my mind about there being something equal to the run dialog in Windows, but it's not coming to mind at the minute and I could be wrong, but now that you mention it, I'll have to dig around and see if I can find something on that. And in all fairness if you have IE load to a blank page, you could also drop a step in that control-d would not be necessary, you could simply type in the URL. On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:36 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > Well, you're all over the place in terms of the debate itself here. Do you > think this is a matter of personal preference or not? If so, you shouldn't > say I'm being unfair. > > Anyway, lets do a test. I really have no idea how this will turn out. Lets > pick a common task we all do practically every day, google something. How > many keystrokes does it take to go from a fresh boot to click through to the > first match?Say you just turned your computer on, how many keystrokes does > it take to google something like "wikipedia"? > > 1. Launch browser = 3 keystrokes windows,i,enter > 2. Enter URL = 3 keystrokes, control+d, enter > (I'm not counting entering the URL itself) > 3. Enter search term = 2 keystrokes, enter [forms mode], enter > (not counting entering the search term) > 4. Find first match = 2 keystrokes, 2 [go to first h2 heading], 3 [go to > first h3 heading] > 5. Click through on first match = 1 keystroke, enter > > So it takes 11 keystrokes to open a browser, get to google.com,do a search, > and click through to the first match. Note that I'm counting combination > keys as 2 keystrokes. Feel free to count 3 key combinations as just 2. But > if you have to use 2 hands, that's 2 keystrokes. > > Actually, in Windows, there is a quicker way to get to a web site than the > way I've mentioned above. You can press windows+r, enter a URL, and press > enter. That could take the place of steps 1 & 2 and leaves us at 8 > keystrokes besides the ones it takes to enter the URL and the search term. > But that is definately taking advantage of the operating system. I do not > know if there is an equivalent feature in MacOS. > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Howell" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 12:34 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. > However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both windows > and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, which are > much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have never used > JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm not interested > in learning something new since I can do what I need with what I got. > However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it takes less > keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is perhaps one issue > and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true depending on the > screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the multitude of issues > with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. > It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What matters > in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have the tools > to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree on. > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > >> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they >> are >> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the >> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, consistency >> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one >> input >> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of >> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you could >> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have to >> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the >> accessibility features come from as
Re: Economics and the Mac
- Original Message - From: "Esther" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:55 PM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > Hi John, > > John G. Heim wrote: >> >> Actually, in Windows, there is a quicker way to get to a web site >> than the >> way I've mentioned above. You can press windows+r, enter a URL, and >> press >> enter. That could take the place of steps 1 & 2 and leaves us at 8 >> keystrokes besides the ones it takes to enter the URL and the search >> term. >> But that is definately taking advantage of the operating system. I >> do not >> know if there is an equivalent feature in MacOS. > > Yes there is: in Safari use Command-Option-F then type in your search > term and press return. This will run a Google search of your entry. > In addition, Command-Option-S will always snap back to the search > results page if you launch your Google search this way. > > Cheers, Well, it's not really the same thing because the shortcut I mentioned was to launch the browser in the first place. It occurs to me that my comparison might not work because you wouldn't have to enter the URL in safari. Actually, Internet Explorer has a default search option too. If you type words into the address bar, it will do a search instead of treating what you wrote as a URL. But I disabled that feature so long ago I'm not sure how it works. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
Well, given your examples I don't know how you can say that jaws misses more than voiceover. You've given 3 significant examples of things voiceover misses and just one fairly obscure thing for jaws and windows. Plus, it would seem to me that if you can use the jaws cursor to get something done, that's a point in favor of jaws, not against it. - Original Message - From: "Chris Hofstader" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac I actually think VO provides much better support for the stuff that ships installed on a Macintosh than JAWS does with a lot of the Windows stuff. VO may miss a few things (I find TimeMachine restores pretty hard to use with VO and Spaces is far from obvious with VO) but JAWS still doesn't work with the built-in dictation program and misses a whole lot of stuff in a lot of Windows utilities - sure, an expert user can get at stuff using the JAWS Cursor and by writing scripts but, out-of-the-box, VO gets far more of the basic Macintosh stuff right than JAWS does with Windows. Also, the Trackpad Commander provides a wholly new and very exciting way for a blind user to navigate that, when people get used to it, will improve efficiency enormously while JAWS remains in the unidimensional world of a long list of semantic blips. cdh cdh On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Scott Howell wrote: > And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. > However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both > windows and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, > which are much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have > never used JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm > not interested in learning something new since I can do what I need with > what I got. However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it > takes less keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is > perhaps one issue and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true > depending on the screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the > multitude of issues with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. > It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What > matters in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have > the tools to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree > on. > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > >> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they >> are >> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the >> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, >> consistency >> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one >> input >> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of >> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you >> could >> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have >> to >> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the >> accessibility features come from as long as they work? >> >> Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your >> contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is >> incorrect. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Scott Howell" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM >> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >> >> >> John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver is >> not >> up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing >> windows >> and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are very >> different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, >> Window-Eyes, and any screen reader running on windows or Linux for that >> matter. They are all screen readers, like windows or SL share some >> similarities, but VoiceOver and JAWS for windows are very different. >> Therefore, the supposed standards of JAWS do not apply to VOiceOver and >> therefore renders your statement inaccurate. >> On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John G. Heim wrote: >> >>> Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator >>> that >>> would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National >>> Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if >>> Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW >>> Micro >>> out of business. They thought that na
Re: Economics and the Mac
Well, I wasn't actually arguing that voiceover and nvda are going to drive FS out of business. If FS isn't being challenged in any significant way by these free screen readers, it only supports my original assertion that the NFB logic was flawed. I don't know if FS is being pressured by nvda and voiceover but they lost out on at least one sale because of voiceover. I bought a Mac for home use instead of a Windows PC . I doubt that I'm the only one who has done that. I have linux on my laptop so that's another sale they missed out on in a way. And while right now I have a Pac Mate, next time I'll probably go with an Iphone. I don't know... Maybe FS can afford to lose all that business as long as I still have jaws on my work computer. - Original Message - From: "Chris Hofstader" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:27 PM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac I can assure you, FS is feeling no pressure from either VO or NVDA and only a tiny bit of pressure from System Access. Window-Eyes will continue to see their share decrease slowly but will maintain a slow growth in numbers of units sold as the market continues to expand annually. There is absolutely no evidence that FS is feeling pressure from any other screen reader. I do think that BrailleNote is beating PAC Mate pretty solidly and that OpenBook trails K1000 more and more each year but it will require a major tectonic shift to knock JAWS down a notch in global share. VO doesn't even try to work in many multi-byte languages like Japanese, Arabic, various Chinese writing systems and probably a few I can't think of right now. If you take a look at how programs called input method editors (IME) work, you'll understand the incredible complexity a screen reader must overcome to give the user reasonable feedback during input. FS sells more than half of JAWS units outside the US and is in far more languages than anyone else with Dolphin coming in second. Any screen reader can do a decent job in the Western European languages and writing systems but toss Japanese which can have four separate writing systems combined in a single document plus lots of words that sound very similar but have terribly different definitions and, unless the screen reader gets it right, a user may tell his boss that he loves him very much and, with the same set of phonemes but different glyphs, tell his wife that he wants to share an umbrella with her. With help from IBM, we got JAWS to work pretty well in Japanese and in the modern Chinese Mandarin writing system. Hal does a pretty good job with the Microsoft IME but users still find them accidentally signing a note with the name of a flower instead of the equivalent of Fred which can be very embarrassing On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:28 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > The real deal breaker was voiceover and nvda. Even if you buy the argument > that Microsoft might have driven FS and GWM out of business if they'd > improved narrator, FS and GWM are facing that same pressure as a result of > voiceover and nvda anyway. > > - Original Message - > From: "Chris Hofstader" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:10 AM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > Ted Henter, at the 1996 NFB convention made the argument in a speech he > delivered that an MS solution would never be as comprehensive as JAWS or > one > of the other screen access tools from the niche companies because it would > never be their highest priority (you can probably find the entire text of > the speech online). In some ways, I think Ted had a point as MS may have > built something that's "good enough" for let's say about 80% of blind > computer users and, with their market cut by such a huge chunk, JAWS, > Window-Eyes, etc. would not have the resources to serve the final 20% who > would probably lose jobs as this is the area where the high priced screen > readers do outperform more generic solutions. > > That speech was before Sections 504 and 508 which changes things as the > federal government may stop purchasing or upgrading Windows if they do not > have a comprehensive solution like JAWS. The Social Security > Administration, the single largest employer of blind people in the US, has > a > whole lot of oddball proprietary software which really need the JAWS or > now > Window-Eyes scripting facilities to get right. If MS put out a solution > that couldn't be customized properly and JAWS stopped developing solutions > good enough to meet the needs of SSA, about 1000 blinks could be > furloughed > until a solution was found. > > It's all a nasty rat's nest in this biz. A combination of politics, > technology, fiscal concerns and monopoly like behavior can be really > disc
Re: Economics and the Mac
Alright, I will accept Scott's original assertion that you can't entirely separate screen reader and operating system when judging efficiency. But I don't think it is really to the point anyway. Freedom Scientific added hotkeys in places where the operating system is inefficient. For example, Insert+f11 brings up a list of the system tray icons. So if you need to do something like change your skype on-line status, you can get there with a minimum of keystrokes. It would be interesting to compare how many keystrokes it takes to do certain common tasks in voiceover & MacOS vs jaws & windows. I already posted on googling "wikipedia". Other ideas: 1. Send an email message 2. Connect to a samba share 3. Create a text file and save it to your desktop To: Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 12:55 PM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > Hi John, > > Just a very quick comment. I don't disagree with the some of the > criteria that you're using such count of number of keystrokes to > complete tasks to evaluate screen readers, and that ultimately things > like the efficiency of operation come into play. However, I'd like to > point out that a large number of the shortcuts, keystrokes etc, that > we use for our day-to-day operations with VoiceOver are built into the > Mac OS X operating system and not specific to VoiceOver. Just for a > recent example, answers on how to download files by pressing Option- > Enter is a Mac shortcut. Two of the problem questions we always have > from potential switchers is where to find a list of all the VoiceOver > shortcuts and is it possible to write scripts for this screen reader. > The point is, we all make daily use of a huge number of shortcuts > built into Mac OS X, both for all Cocoa Compliant apps (such as the > movement and selection shortcuts), as well as the shortcuts specific > to particular applications. Furthermore, scripting is also built into > the operating system -- from basic shell scripting, in terminal, to > AppleScripts, and even, to make things available to people without > programming background, Automator actions. So, to a certain extent, > Scott's statement that other issues of the Mac OS X operating system > really do come into play in determining how efficiently overall > someone can work with VoiceOver. Sure, I could teach somebody to read > only the VoiceOver Getting Started Manual and follow only topics and > examples covered there and work far less efficiently than I do from > day to day by exploiting the other efficiencies in the Mac Operating > system. As you say, ultimately, we all care about the results. > > Just my opinions. YMMV > > Cheers, > > Esther > > > > John G. Heim wrote: > >> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS >> they are >> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of >> the >> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, >> consistency >> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from >> one input >> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the >> percentage of >> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you >> could >> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you >> have to >> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where >> the >> accessibility features come from as long as they work? >> >> Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your >> contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is >> incorrect. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Scott Howell" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM >> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >> >> >> John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver >> is not >> up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing >> windows >> and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are >> very >> different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, >> Window-Eyes, and any screen reader running on windows or Linux for >> that >> matter. They are all screen readers, like windows or SL share some >> similarities, but VoiceOver and JAWS for windows are very different. >> Therefore, the supposed standards of JAWS do not apply to VOiceOver >> and >> therefore renders your statement inaccurate. >> On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John G. Heim wrote: >> >>> Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to >>> narrator >>&g
Re: Economics and the Mac
Precisely. It even works if a user is only using a command line interface such as those using Gentoo or GRML. On 2 Dec 2009, at 19:56, Chris Hofstader wrote: > The darnedest thing about Spaces, though, is that it is little more than > having multiple UNIX-like desktops which is a really obvious task on every > GNU/Linux distro out there and one would think that having UNIX in its bowels > that Apple would have gotten this for free or at least a low cost. > On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:44 PM, James & Nash wrote: > >> Hi Chris, >> >> You wrote: >>> Spaces is far from obvious with VO) >> >> This is because Spaces is conceptually broken. You can't imagine the times >> I've E-Mailed Apple trying to explain why this is and waht an excellent >> feature this would be if it only worked as it should. >> >> TC >> >> James >> On 2 Dec 2009, at 19:35, Chris Hofstader wrote: >> >>> I actually think VO provides much better support for the stuff that ships >>> installed on a Macintosh than JAWS does with a lot of the Windows stuff. >>> VO may miss a few things (I find TimeMachine restores pretty hard to use >>> with VO and Spaces is far from obvious with VO) but JAWS still doesn't work >>> with the built-in dictation program and misses a whole lot of stuff in a >>> lot of Windows utilities - sure, an expert user can get at stuff using the >>> JAWS Cursor and by writing scripts but, out-of-the-box, VO gets far more of >>> the basic Macintosh stuff right than JAWS does with Windows. >>> >>> Also, the Trackpad Commander provides a wholly new and very exciting way >>> for a blind user to navigate that, when people get used to it, will improve >>> efficiency enormously while JAWS remains in the unidimensional world of a >>> long list of semantic blips. >>> >>> cdh >>> cdh >>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Scott Howell wrote: >>> >>>> And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. >>>> However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both >>>> windows and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, >>>> which are much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have >>>> never used JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm >>>> not interested in learning something new since I can do what I need with >>>> what I got. However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it >>>> takes less keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is >>>> perhaps one issue and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true >>>> depending on the screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the >>>> multitude of issues with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. >>>> It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What >>>> matters in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have >>>> the tools to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree >>>> on. >>>> >>>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: >>>> >>>>> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they >>>>> are >>>>> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the >>>>> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, >>>>> consistency >>>>> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one >>>>> input >>>>> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of >>>>> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you >>>>> could >>>>> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have >>>>> to >>>>> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the >>>>> accessibility features come from as long as they work? >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your >>>>> contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>> From: "Scott Howell" >>>>> To: >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >>
Re: Economics and the Mac
One thing I like about the Mac is that there are several ways of doing many tasks. For instance, in Safari, I can think of at least 4 and sometimes 5 different ways of getting where you want to go. Different methods work better for different people. On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Kevin Gibbs wrote: > There's one other aspect of this debate. Regardless of the number of > keystrokes it takes to execute a task, the other consideration, and this is > totally subjective, is how easy it is to remember the keystrokes involved in > executing that action. In other words, how intuitive or "logical" is a > given accessibility solution to a given user. That's where the subjectivity > really comes into play. We all had to learn whatever it is we're > comfortable with today. > > > -Original Message- > From: John G. Heim [mailto:jh...@math.wisc.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:37 PM > To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > Well, you're all over the place in terms of the debate itself here. Do you > think this is a matter of personal preference or not? If so, you shouldn't > say I'm being unfair. > > Anyway, lets do a test. I really have no idea how this will turn out. Lets > pick a common task we all do practically every day, google something. How > many keystrokes does it take to go from a fresh boot to click through to the > > first match?Say you just turned your computer on, how many keystrokes does > it take to google something like "wikipedia"? > > 1. Launch browser = 3 keystrokes windows,i,enter > 2. Enter URL = 3 keystrokes, control+d, enter > (I'm not counting entering the URL itself) > 3. Enter search term = 2 keystrokes, enter [forms mode], enter (not counting > entering the search term) 4. Find first match = 2 keystrokes, 2 [go to first > h2 heading], 3 [go to > first h3 heading] > 5. Click through on first match = 1 keystroke, enter > > So it takes 11 keystrokes to open a browser, get to google.com,do a search, > and click through to the first match. Note that I'm counting combination > keys as 2 keystrokes. Feel free to count 3 key combinations as just 2. But > if you have to use 2 hands, that's 2 keystrokes. > > Actually, in Windows, there is a quicker way to get to a web site than the > way I've mentioned above. You can press windows+r, enter a URL, and press > enter. That could take the place of steps 1 & 2 and leaves us at 8 > keystrokes besides the ones it takes to enter the URL and the search term. > But that is definately taking advantage of the operating system. I do not > know if there is an equivalent feature in MacOS. > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Howell" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 12:34 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. > However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both windows > and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, which are > much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have never used > JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm not interested > in learning something new since I can do what I need with what I got. > However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it takes less > keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is perhaps one issue > and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true depending on the > screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the multitude of issues > with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. > It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What matters > in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have the tools > to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree on. > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > >> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS >> they >> are >> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the >> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, consistency >> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one >> input >> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of >> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you could >> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have to >> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the >> accessibility features come from as lo
Re: Economics and the Mac
The darnedest thing about Spaces, though, is that it is little more than having multiple UNIX-like desktops which is a really obvious task on every GNU/Linux distro out there and one would think that having UNIX in its bowels that Apple would have gotten this for free or at least a low cost. On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:44 PM, James & Nash wrote: > Hi Chris, > > You wrote: >> Spaces is far from obvious with VO) > > This is because Spaces is conceptually broken. You can't imagine the times > I've E-Mailed Apple trying to explain why this is and waht an excellent > feature this would be if it only worked as it should. > > TC > > James > On 2 Dec 2009, at 19:35, Chris Hofstader wrote: > >> I actually think VO provides much better support for the stuff that ships >> installed on a Macintosh than JAWS does with a lot of the Windows stuff. VO >> may miss a few things (I find TimeMachine restores pretty hard to use with >> VO and Spaces is far from obvious with VO) but JAWS still doesn't work with >> the built-in dictation program and misses a whole lot of stuff in a lot of >> Windows utilities - sure, an expert user can get at stuff using the JAWS >> Cursor and by writing scripts but, out-of-the-box, VO gets far more of the >> basic Macintosh stuff right than JAWS does with Windows. >> >> Also, the Trackpad Commander provides a wholly new and very exciting way for >> a blind user to navigate that, when people get used to it, will improve >> efficiency enormously while JAWS remains in the unidimensional world of a >> long list of semantic blips. >> >> cdh >> cdh >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Scott Howell wrote: >> >>> And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. >>> However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both windows >>> and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, which are >>> much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have never used >>> JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm not interested >>> in learning something new since I can do what I need with what I got. >>> However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it takes less >>> keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is perhaps one issue >>> and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true depending on the >>> screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the multitude of issues >>> with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. >>> It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What matters >>> in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have the tools >>> to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree on. >>> >>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: >>> >>>> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they >>>> are >>>> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the >>>> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, consistency >>>> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one >>>> input >>>> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of >>>> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you could >>>> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have to >>>> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the >>>> accessibility features come from as long as they work? >>>> >>>> Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your >>>> contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is incorrect. >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Scott Howell" >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >>>> >>>> >>>> John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver is >>>> not >>>> up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing >>>> windows >>>> and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are very >>>> different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, >>>> Window-Eyes, and any screen reader running on windows or Linux for that >>>> matter. They
Re: Economics and the Mac
Hi John, John G. Heim wrote: > > Actually, in Windows, there is a quicker way to get to a web site > than the > way I've mentioned above. You can press windows+r, enter a URL, and > press > enter. That could take the place of steps 1 & 2 and leaves us at 8 > keystrokes besides the ones it takes to enter the URL and the search > term. > But that is definately taking advantage of the operating system. I > do not > know if there is an equivalent feature in MacOS. Yes there is: in Safari use Command-Option-F then type in your search term and press return. This will run a Google search of your entry. In addition, Command-Option-S will always snap back to the search results page if you launch your Google search this way. Cheers, Esther -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
I think this argument can be nicely informed by looking at Jamal Mazrui's "Dueling Operating Systems" presentation at CSUN 2009. He has an expert in JAWS, VO and orca perform identical tasks and one can watch/hear how well each performs. On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:36 PM, John G. Him wrote: > Well, you're all over the place in terms of the debate itself here. Do you > think this is a matter of personal preference or not? If so, you shouldn't > say I'm being unfair. > > Anyway, lets do a test. I really have no idea how this will turn out. Lets > pick a common task we all do practically every day, google something. How > many keystrokes does it take to go from a fresh boot to click through to the > first match?Say you just turned your computer on, how many keystrokes does > it take to google something like "wikipedia"? > > 1. Launch browser = 3 keystrokes windows,i,enter > 2. Enter URL = 3 keystrokes, control+d, enter > (I'm not counting entering the URL itself) > 3. Enter search term = 2 keystrokes, enter [forms mode], enter > (not counting entering the search term) > 4. Find first match = 2 keystrokes, 2 [go to first h2 heading], 3 [go to > first h3 heading] > 5. Click through on first match = 1 keystroke, enter > > So it takes 11 keystrokes to open a browser, get to google.com,do a search, > and click through to the first match. Note that I'm counting combination > keys as 2 keystrokes. Feel free to count 3 key combinations as just 2. But > if you have to use 2 hands, that's 2 keystrokes. > > Actually, in Windows, there is a quicker way to get to a web site than the > way I've mentioned above. You can press windows+r, enter a URL, and press > enter. That could take the place of steps 1 & 2 and leaves us at 8 > keystrokes besides the ones it takes to enter the URL and the search term. > But that is definitely taking advantage of the operating system. I do not > know if there is an equivalent feature in MacOS. > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Howell" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 12:34 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. > However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both windows > and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, which are > much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have never used > JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm not interested > in learning something new since I can do what I need with what I got. > However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it takes less > keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is perhaps one issue > and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true depending on the > screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the multitude of issues > with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. > It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What matters > in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have the tools > to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree on. > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > >> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they >> are >> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the >> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, consistency >> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one >> input >> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of >> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you could >> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have to >> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the >> accessibility features come from as long as they work? >> >> Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your >> contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is incorrect. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Scott Howell" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM >> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >> >> >> John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver is >> not >> up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing >> windows >> and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are very >> different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, >> Window-Eyes,
Re: Economics and the Mac
Tables is quite usable in relatively simple situations but nothing like the powerhouse that JAWS is in Excel. VO provides virtually no efficiency augmentations so a user needs to poke around looking for cells with data and then figure out what they mean as there is no facility for announcing row or column headers in a spreadsheet. If there is more than one table on a sheet, a VO user has no way of knowing (without memorization) which data set they are reading and, perhaps, wanting to modify. VO in all spreadsheets is roughly the equal of what JAWS and WE were doing in Excel in 1998 and they've both improved a real lot since. As I said, I find most things much more comfortable on a Macintosh with VO but spreadsheets are definitely not one of them. cdh On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:24 PM, carlene knight wrote: > I have no personal experience with the following , but somebody on another > list I belong to like a program call Tables for this purpose. Currently I > don't work with tables but thought this might be of interest. I may be way > off the mark. > > > > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Chris Hofstader wrote: > >> If you don't like JAWS in spreadsheets then you will hate Macintosh in >> similar programs. >> >> JAWS provides a ton of semantically interesting ways to navigate in Excel. >> You can get lists of cells with data, set row and column headings and have >> them follow you to files with similar titles, have multiple "regions" on a >> sheet with multiple tables, read the data in charts and graphs, do all sorts >> of interesting things on a braille line to optimize use of that expensive >> real estate, etc. Just hit JAWSKEY+V to bring up the verbosity dialogue or >> pop up JAWS hot key help for Excel and you'll find dozens of features >> unavailable in any other screen reader although Window-Eyes is catching up >> in spite of FS hitting them with a patent suit regarding augmented >> information in a spreadsheet. >> >> I didn't know about these buttons in cells but I'd bet if you can access >> them through VB script then you can get at them with a slight change to the >> JAWS scripts. If you look into the VB object model for Excel and find this >> item, send it to Eric Damery at FS and he'll probably get it into the Excel >> scripts very quickly. >> >> The web 2.0 stuff, if it follows the Aria guidelines (you can find it at >> www.w3c.org/wai) actually work quite good with JAWS but far less well with >> all other screen readers. Because there are official guidelines, it >> shouldn't be too hard for the other screen access tools to catch up but, as >> is often the case, FS got IBM to pay them big time consulting dollars to add >> Aria support to JAWS so they could deploy some stuff and have an >> accessibility solution ripe and ready. >> >> Overall, I find the Macintosh to provide a really superior experience but >> it has its limitations. One could probably add features very similar to the >> cool stuff JAWS does in excel to VO plus OpenOffice using any number of >> interesting techniques but it would take a pretty solid screen reader hacker >> with an understanding of the guts of both VO and OO to pull it off and, >> sadly, I don't think there are too many people really diving into the >> hardcore technical side of Macintosh accessibility who do not work for Apple. >> >> cdh >> >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:52 AM, John W. Carty wrote: >> >>> Could you please discuss spreadsheet limits using vo in more detail. I'm >>> struggling to make the move to a mac and I use a lot of spreadsheets. >>> >>> I work in an environment that uses a lot of spreadsheets and I've always >>> been disappointed with jaws support for excel. In a professional >>> environment I encounter spreadsheets almost daily that uses vba buttons >>> embedded in cells that jaws cannot see. this has been a problem forever and >>> fs has never done anything to solve this issue thru out office not just >>> excel. >>> >>> I believe web 2.0 is going to reek havoc for screen reader users for many >>> years regardless of the screen reader. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Chris Hofstader [mailto:c...@hofstader.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:22 AM >>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com >>> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >>> >>> I think VO does a poor job with spreadsheets, contai
Re: Economics and the Mac
You brought up some interesting points concerning spreadsheets here, Chris. If enough people write to accessibil...@apple.com, I believe the development team will work on a sort of spreadsheet that will will be accessible with VoiceOver. There are probably some spreadsheet programs that give limited access with VoiceOver; this was discussed several months ago in an earlier spread and I got the impression that several people have, in fact, written to Apple expressing their concerns for a comprehensive spreadsheet program that would be quite compatible with VoiceOver in future updates. Richie Gardenhire, Anchorage, Alaska. On Dec 2, 2009, at 7:12 AM, Chris Hofstader wrote: If you don't like JAWS in spreadsheets then you will hate Macintosh in similar programs. JAWS provides a ton of semantically interesting ways to navigate in Excel. You can get lists of cells with data, set row and column headings and have them follow you to files with similar titles, have multiple "regions" on a sheet with multiple tables, read the data in charts and graphs, do all sorts of interesting things on a braille line to optimize use of that expensive real estate, etc. Just hit JAWSKEY+V to bring up the verbosity dialogue or pop up JAWS hot key help for Excel and you'll find dozens of features unavailable in any other screen reader although Window-Eyes is catching up in spite of FS hitting them with a patent suit regarding augmented information in a spreadsheet. I didn't know about these buttons in cells but I'd bet if you can access them through VB script then you can get at them with a slight change to the JAWS scripts. If you look into the VB object model for Excel and find this item, send it to Eric Damery at FS and he'll probably get it into the Excel scripts very quickly. The web 2.0 stuff, if it follows the Aria guidelines (you can find it at www.w3c.org/wai) actually work quite good with JAWS but far less well with all other screen readers. Because there are official guidelines, it shouldn't be too hard for the other screen access tools to catch up but, as is often the case, FS got IBM to pay them big time consulting dollars to add Aria support to JAWS so they could deploy some stuff and have an accessibility solution ripe and ready. Overall, I find the Macintosh to provide a really superior experience but it has its limitations. One could probably add features very similar to the cool stuff JAWS does in excel to VO plus OpenOffice using any number of interesting techniques but it would take a pretty solid screen reader hacker with an understanding of the guts of both VO and OO to pull it off and, sadly, I don't think there are too many people really diving into the hardcore technical side of Macintosh accessibility who do not work for Apple. cdh On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:52 AM, John W. Carty wrote: > Could you please discuss spreadsheet limits using vo in more detail. > I'm struggling to make the move to a mac and I use a lot of > spreadsheets. > > I work in an environment that uses a lot of spreadsheets and I've > always been disappointed with jaws support for excel. In a > professional environment I encounter spreadsheets almost daily that > uses vba buttons embedded in cells that jaws cannot see. this has > been a problem forever and fs has never done anything to solve this > issue thru out office not just excel. > > I believe web 2.0 is going to reek havoc for screen reader users for > many years regardless of the screen reader. > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Hofstader [mailto:c...@hofstader.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:22 AM > To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > I think VO does a poor job with spreadsheets, containing none of the > semantic navigation features in JAWS or WE. It generally does a > hardly adequate job in all tabular constructs and struggles with > complex web 2.0 apps like googledocs. > On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:47 PM, James & Nash wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm not looking to upset anyone, but can I ask why do you think >> that VO and NVDA are not quite up to the standard set by JFW and We? >> >> Mac OS X 10.6 set the VO bar extremely high. This release has made >> VO a fully functional and viable solution for Blind computer users >> who wish to use a Mac. I am not saying that improvements do not >> need to be made, but that goes for all of the Screen Readers on all >> of the platforms and the operating systems generally. I admit that >> prior to this, whilst VO was very good, it did not quite hit the >> mark, and Apple's approach to accessibility seemed to be stagnating &g
Re: Economics and the Mac
Hi Chris, You wrote: > Spaces is far from obvious with VO) This is because Spaces is conceptually broken. You can't imagine the times I've E-Mailed Apple trying to explain why this is and waht an excellent feature this would be if it only worked as it should. TC James On 2 Dec 2009, at 19:35, Chris Hofstader wrote: > I actually think VO provides much better support for the stuff that ships > installed on a Macintosh than JAWS does with a lot of the Windows stuff. VO > may miss a few things (I find TimeMachine restores pretty hard to use with VO > and Spaces is far from obvious with VO) but JAWS still doesn't work with the > built-in dictation program and misses a whole lot of stuff in a lot of > Windows utilities - sure, an expert user can get at stuff using the JAWS > Cursor and by writing scripts but, out-of-the-box, VO gets far more of the > basic Macintosh stuff right than JAWS does with Windows. > > Also, the Trackpad Commander provides a wholly new and very exciting way for > a blind user to navigate that, when people get used to it, will improve > efficiency enormously while JAWS remains in the unidimensional world of a > long list of semantic blips. > > cdh > cdh > On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Scott Howell wrote: > >> And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. >> However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both windows >> and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, which are >> much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have never used >> JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm not interested >> in learning something new since I can do what I need with what I got. >> However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it takes less >> keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is perhaps one issue >> and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true depending on the >> screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the multitude of issues >> with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. >> It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What matters >> in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have the tools >> to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree on. >> >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: >> >>> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they >>> are >>> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the >>> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, consistency >>> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one input >>> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of >>> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you could >>> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have to >>> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the >>> accessibility features come from as long as they work? >>> >>> Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your >>> contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is incorrect. >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Scott Howell" >>> To: >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM >>> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >>> >>> >>> John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver is not >>> up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing >>> windows >>> and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are very >>> different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, >>> Window-Eyes, and any screen reader running on windows or Linux for that >>> matter. They are all screen readers, like windows or SL share some >>> similarities, but VoiceOver and JAWS for windows are very different. >>> Therefore, the supposed standards of JAWS do not apply to VOiceOver and >>> therefore renders your statement inaccurate. >>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John G. Heim wrote: >>> >>>> Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator >>>> that >>>> would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National >>>> Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if >>>> Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom
RE: Economics and the Mac
There's one other aspect of this debate. Regardless of the number of keystrokes it takes to execute a task, the other consideration, and this is totally subjective, is how easy it is to remember the keystrokes involved in executing that action. In other words, how intuitive or "logical" is a given accessibility solution to a given user. That's where the subjectivity really comes into play. We all had to learn whatever it is we're comfortable with today. -Original Message- From: John G. Heim [mailto:jh...@math.wisc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:37 PM To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac Well, you're all over the place in terms of the debate itself here. Do you think this is a matter of personal preference or not? If so, you shouldn't say I'm being unfair. Anyway, lets do a test. I really have no idea how this will turn out. Lets pick a common task we all do practically every day, google something. How many keystrokes does it take to go from a fresh boot to click through to the first match?Say you just turned your computer on, how many keystrokes does it take to google something like "wikipedia"? 1. Launch browser = 3 keystrokes windows,i,enter 2. Enter URL = 3 keystrokes, control+d, enter (I'm not counting entering the URL itself) 3. Enter search term = 2 keystrokes, enter [forms mode], enter (not counting entering the search term) 4. Find first match = 2 keystrokes, 2 [go to first h2 heading], 3 [go to first h3 heading] 5. Click through on first match = 1 keystroke, enter So it takes 11 keystrokes to open a browser, get to google.com,do a search, and click through to the first match. Note that I'm counting combination keys as 2 keystrokes. Feel free to count 3 key combinations as just 2. But if you have to use 2 hands, that's 2 keystrokes. Actually, in Windows, there is a quicker way to get to a web site than the way I've mentioned above. You can press windows+r, enter a URL, and press enter. That could take the place of steps 1 & 2 and leaves us at 8 keystrokes besides the ones it takes to enter the URL and the search term. But that is definately taking advantage of the operating system. I do not know if there is an equivalent feature in MacOS. - Original Message - From: "Scott Howell" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 12:34 PM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both windows and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, which are much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have never used JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm not interested in learning something new since I can do what I need with what I got. However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it takes less keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is perhaps one issue and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true depending on the screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the multitude of issues with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What matters in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have the tools to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree on. On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS > they > are > used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the > number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, consistency > can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one > input > field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of > inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you could > even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have to > download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the > accessibility features come from as long as they work? > > Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your > contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is > incorrect. > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Howell" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver > is > not > up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing > windows > and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are very > different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, > Window-E
Re: Economics and the Mac
Well, you're all over the place in terms of the debate itself here. Do you think this is a matter of personal preference or not? If so, you shouldn't say I'm being unfair. Anyway, lets do a test. I really have no idea how this will turn out. Lets pick a common task we all do practically every day, google something. How many keystrokes does it take to go from a fresh boot to click through to the first match?Say you just turned your computer on, how many keystrokes does it take to google something like "wikipedia"? 1. Launch browser = 3 keystrokes windows,i,enter 2. Enter URL = 3 keystrokes, control+d, enter (I'm not counting entering the URL itself) 3. Enter search term = 2 keystrokes, enter [forms mode], enter (not counting entering the search term) 4. Find first match = 2 keystrokes, 2 [go to first h2 heading], 3 [go to first h3 heading] 5. Click through on first match = 1 keystroke, enter So it takes 11 keystrokes to open a browser, get to google.com,do a search, and click through to the first match. Note that I'm counting combination keys as 2 keystrokes. Feel free to count 3 key combinations as just 2. But if you have to use 2 hands, that's 2 keystrokes. Actually, in Windows, there is a quicker way to get to a web site than the way I've mentioned above. You can press windows+r, enter a URL, and press enter. That could take the place of steps 1 & 2 and leaves us at 8 keystrokes besides the ones it takes to enter the URL and the search term. But that is definately taking advantage of the operating system. I do not know if there is an equivalent feature in MacOS. - Original Message - From: "Scott Howell" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 12:34 PM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both windows and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, which are much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have never used JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm not interested in learning something new since I can do what I need with what I got. However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it takes less keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is perhaps one issue and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true depending on the screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the multitude of issues with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What matters in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have the tools to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree on. On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they > are > used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the > number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, consistency > can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one > input > field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of > inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you could > even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have to > download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the > accessibility features come from as long as they work? > > Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your > contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is incorrect. > > ----- Original Message - > From: "Scott Howell" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver is > not > up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing > windows > and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are very > different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, > Window-Eyes, and any screen reader running on windows or Linux for that > matter. They are all screen readers, like windows or SL share some > similarities, but VoiceOver and JAWS for windows are very different. > Therefore, the supposed standards of JAWS do not apply to VOiceOver and > therefore renders your statement inaccurate. > On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > >> Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator >> that >> would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National >> Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if >> Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Fre
Re: Economics and the Mac
I actually think VO provides much better support for the stuff that ships installed on a Macintosh than JAWS does with a lot of the Windows stuff. VO may miss a few things (I find TimeMachine restores pretty hard to use with VO and Spaces is far from obvious with VO) but JAWS still doesn't work with the built-in dictation program and misses a whole lot of stuff in a lot of Windows utilities - sure, an expert user can get at stuff using the JAWS Cursor and by writing scripts but, out-of-the-box, VO gets far more of the basic Macintosh stuff right than JAWS does with Windows. Also, the Trackpad Commander provides a wholly new and very exciting way for a blind user to navigate that, when people get used to it, will improve efficiency enormously while JAWS remains in the unidimensional world of a long list of semantic blips. cdh cdh On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Scott Howell wrote: > And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. However, > you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both windows and the > Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, which are much > easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have never used JAWS and > of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm not interested in > learning something new since I can do what I need with what I got. However, > with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it takes less keystrokes then > before. You can argue that interacting is perhaps one issue and with a > windows=based screen reader that may be true depending on the screen reader, > but at the same time I don't have the multitude of issues with VO as I do > with WE when dealing with MSAA. > It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What matters > in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have the tools > to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree on. > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > >> No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they are >> used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the >> number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, consistency >> can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one input >> field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of >> inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you could >> even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have to >> download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the >> accessibility features come from as long as they work? >> >> Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your >> contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is incorrect. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Scott Howell" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM >> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >> >> >> John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver is not >> up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing windows >> and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are very >> different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, >> Window-Eyes, and any screen reader running on windows or Linux for that >> matter. They are all screen readers, like windows or SL share some >> similarities, but VoiceOver and JAWS for windows are very different. >> Therefore, the supposed standards of JAWS do not apply to VOiceOver and >> therefore renders your statement inaccurate. >> On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John G. Heim wrote: >> >>> Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator >>> that >>> would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National >>> Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if >>> Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW >>> Micro >>> out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality >>> of >>> Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those >>> products out of the market. >>> >>> Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued >>> that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy >>> to >>> be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of >>> business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen >>> readers, voice
Re: Economics and the Mac
I can assure you, FS is feeling no pressure from either VO or NVDA and only a tiny bit of pressure from System Access. Window-Eyes will continue to see their share decrease slowly but will maintain a slow growth in numbers of units sold as the market continues to expand annually. There is absolutely no evidence that FS is feeling pressure from any other screen reader. I do think that BrailleNote is beating PAC Mate pretty solidly and that OpenBook trails K1000 more and more each year but it will require a major tectonic shift to knock JAWS down a notch in global share. VO doesn't even try to work in many multi-byte languages like Japanese, Arabic, various Chinese writing systems and probably a few I can't think of right now. If you take a look at how programs called input method editors (IME) work, you'll understand the incredible complexity a screen reader must overcome to give the user reasonable feedback during input. FS sells more than half of JAWS units outside the US and is in far more languages than anyone else with Dolphin coming in second. Any screen reader can do a decent job in the Western European languages and writing systems but toss Japanese which can have four separate writing systems combined in a single document plus lots of words that sound very similar but have terribly different definitions and, unless the screen reader gets it right, a user may tell his boss that he loves him very much and, with the same set of phonemes but different glyphs, tell his wife that he wants to share an umbrella with her. With help from IBM, we got JAWS to work pretty well in Japanese and in the modern Chinese Mandarin writing system. Hal does a pretty good job with the Microsoft IME but users still find them accidentally signing a note with the name of a flower instead of the equivalent of Fred which can be very embarrassing On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:28 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > The real deal breaker was voiceover and nvda. Even if you buy the argument > that Microsoft might have driven FS and GWM out of business if they'd > improved narrator, FS and GWM are facing that same pressure as a result of > voiceover and nvda anyway. > > - Original Message - > From: "Chris Hofstader" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:10 AM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > Ted Henter, at the 1996 NFB convention made the argument in a speech he > delivered that an MS solution would never be as comprehensive as JAWS or one > of the other screen access tools from the niche companies because it would > never be their highest priority (you can probably find the entire text of > the speech online). In some ways, I think Ted had a point as MS may have > built something that's "good enough" for let's say about 80% of blind > computer users and, with their market cut by such a huge chunk, JAWS, > Window-Eyes, etc. would not have the resources to serve the final 20% who > would probably lose jobs as this is the area where the high priced screen > readers do outperform more generic solutions. > > That speech was before Sections 504 and 508 which changes things as the > federal government may stop purchasing or upgrading Windows if they do not > have a comprehensive solution like JAWS. The Social Security > Administration, the single largest employer of blind people in the US, has a > whole lot of oddball proprietary software which really need the JAWS or now > Window-Eyes scripting facilities to get right. If MS put out a solution > that couldn't be customized properly and JAWS stopped developing solutions > good enough to meet the needs of SSA, about 1000 blinks could be furloughed > until a solution was found. > > It's all a nasty rat's nest in this biz. A combination of politics, > technology, fiscal concerns and monopoly like behavior can be really > discouraging. I've definitely spent too much time thinking about and > writing emails on this subject the past couple of days than is healthy. I'm > really enjoying Mark and the others on this list for making me think hard > about these issues but I grow increasingly less hopeful with each email I > write as the whole thing looks increasingly grim. > > cdh > On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John G. Him wrote: > >> Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator >> that >> would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National >> Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if >> Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW >> Micro >> out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality >> of >> Jaws and window-eyes yet it might s
Re: Economics and the Mac
I have no personal experience with the following , but somebody on another list I belong to like a program call Tables for this purpose. Currently I don't work with tables but thought this might be of interest. I may be way off the mark. On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Chris Hofstader wrote: > If you don't like JAWS in spreadsheets then you will hate Macintosh in > similar programs. > > JAWS provides a ton of semantically interesting ways to navigate in Excel. > You can get lists of cells with data, set row and column headings and have > them follow you to files with similar titles, have multiple "regions" on a > sheet with multiple tables, read the data in charts and graphs, do all sorts > of interesting things on a braille line to optimize use of that expensive > real estate, etc. Just hit JAWSKEY+V to bring up the verbosity dialogue or > pop up JAWS hot key help for Excel and you'll find dozens of features > unavailable in any other screen reader although Window-Eyes is catching up in > spite of FS hitting them with a patent suit regarding augmented information > in a spreadsheet. > > I didn't know about these buttons in cells but I'd bet if you can access them > through VB script then you can get at them with a slight change to the JAWS > scripts. If you look into the VB object model for Excel and find this item, > send it to Eric Damery at FS and he'll probably get it into the Excel scripts > very quickly. > > The web 2.0 stuff, if it follows the Aria guidelines (you can find it at > www.w3c.org/wai) actually work quite good with JAWS but far less well with > all other screen readers. Because there are official guidelines, it > shouldn't be too hard for the other screen access tools to catch up but, as > is often the case, FS got IBM to pay them big time consulting dollars to add > Aria support to JAWS so they could deploy some stuff and have an > accessibility solution ripe and ready. > > Overall, I find the Macintosh to provide a really superior experience but it > has its limitations. One could probably add features very similar to the > cool stuff JAWS does in excel to VO plus OpenOffice using any number of > interesting techniques but it would take a pretty solid screen reader hacker > with an understanding of the guts of both VO and OO to pull it off and, > sadly, I don't think there are too many people really diving into the > hardcore technical side of Macintosh accessibility who do not work for Apple. > > cdh > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:52 AM, John W. Carty wrote: > >> Could you please discuss spreadsheet limits using vo in more detail. I'm >> struggling to make the move to a mac and I use a lot of spreadsheets. >> >> I work in an environment that uses a lot of spreadsheets and I've always >> been disappointed with jaws support for excel. In a professional environment >> I encounter spreadsheets almost daily that uses vba buttons embedded in >> cells that jaws cannot see. this has been a problem forever and fs has never >> done anything to solve this issue thru out office not just excel. >> >> I believe web 2.0 is going to reek havoc for screen reader users for many >> years regardless of the screen reader. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Chris Hofstader [mailto:c...@hofstader.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:22 AM >> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com >> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >> >> I think VO does a poor job with spreadsheets, containing none of the >> semantic navigation features in JAWS or WE. It generally does a hardly >> adequate job in all tabular constructs and struggles with complex web 2.0 >> apps like googledocs. >> On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:47 PM, James & Nash wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm not looking to upset anyone, but can I ask why do you think that VO and >>> NVDA are not quite up to the standard set by JFW and We? >>> >>> Mac OS X 10.6 set the VO bar extremely high. This release has made VO a >>> fully functional and viable solution for Blind computer users who wish to >>> use a Mac. I am not saying that improvements do not need to be made, but >>> that goes for all of the Screen Readers on all of the platforms and the >>> operating systems generally. I admit that prior to this, whilst VO was very >>> good, it did not quite hit the mark, and Apple's approach to accessibility >>> seemed to be stagnating - and so I migrated back to Windows. This was a >>> personal choice
Re: Economics and the Mac
Hi John, Just a very quick comment. I don't disagree with the some of the criteria that you're using such count of number of keystrokes to complete tasks to evaluate screen readers, and that ultimately things like the efficiency of operation come into play. However, I'd like to point out that a large number of the shortcuts, keystrokes etc, that we use for our day-to-day operations with VoiceOver are built into the Mac OS X operating system and not specific to VoiceOver. Just for a recent example, answers on how to download files by pressing Option- Enter is a Mac shortcut. Two of the problem questions we always have from potential switchers is where to find a list of all the VoiceOver shortcuts and is it possible to write scripts for this screen reader. The point is, we all make daily use of a huge number of shortcuts built into Mac OS X, both for all Cocoa Compliant apps (such as the movement and selection shortcuts), as well as the shortcuts specific to particular applications. Furthermore, scripting is also built into the operating system -- from basic shell scripting, in terminal, to AppleScripts, and even, to make things available to people without programming background, Automator actions. So, to a certain extent, Scott's statement that other issues of the Mac OS X operating system really do come into play in determining how efficiently overall someone can work with VoiceOver. Sure, I could teach somebody to read only the VoiceOver Getting Started Manual and follow only topics and examples covered there and work far less efficiently than I do from day to day by exploiting the other efficiencies in the Mac Operating system. As you say, ultimately, we all care about the results. Just my opinions. YMMV Cheers, Esther John G. Heim wrote: > No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS > they are > used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of > the > number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, > consistency > can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from > one input > field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the > percentage of > inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you > could > even include accessibility of third party applications even if you > have to > download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where > the > accessibility features come from as long as they work? > > Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your > contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is > incorrect. > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Howell" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver > is not > up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing > windows > and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are > very > different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, > Window-Eyes, and any screen reader running on windows or Linux for > that > matter. They are all screen readers, like windows or SL share some > similarities, but VoiceOver and JAWS for windows are very different. > Therefore, the supposed standards of JAWS do not apply to VOiceOver > and > therefore renders your statement inaccurate. > On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > >> Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to >> narrator >> that >> would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National >> Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if >> Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW >> Micro >> out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the >> quality >> of >> Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those >> products out of the market. >> >> Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I >> argued >> that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too >> crummy >> to >> be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of >> business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free >> screen >> readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another >> point >> against the NFB position. >> >> On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or >> nvda >> full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. >&
Re: Economics and the Mac
That's fair enough, I was just curious. On 2 Dec 2009, at 14:21, Chris Hofstader wrote: > I think VO does a poor job with spreadsheets, containing none of the semantic > navigation features in JAWS or WE. It generally does a hardly adequate job > in all tabular constructs and struggles with complex web 2.0 apps like > googledocs. > On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:47 PM, James & Nash wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm not looking to upset anyone, but can I ask why do you think that VO and >> NVDA are not quite up to the standard set by JFW and We? >> >> Mac OS X 10.6 set the VO bar extremely high. This release has made VO a >> fully functional and viable solution for Blind computer users who wish to >> use a Mac. I am not saying that improvements do not need to be made, but >> that goes for all of the Screen Readers on all of the platforms and the >> operating systems generally. I admit that prior to this, whilst VO was very >> good, it did not quite hit the mark, and Apple's approach to accessibility >> seemed to be stagnating - and so I migrated back to Windows. This was a >> personal choice though. >> >> Keep in mind, that; NVDA, Orca and VO work in a very different way to JFW >> and Window Eyes. All three use object navigation - a concept which allows us >> as blind users to gain an idea of what our sighted co-workers etc are seeing >> on the screen. This is a radical concept, and one which Apple has been >> slammed for pursuing. It is also worth remembering that both Orca and Voice >> Over are being used on operating systems which are fundamentally and vastly >> different to Windows, both in concept and design. >> >> I do not mean this to be a patronising or condescending E-Mail, I am just >> curious as to why you think VO is not yet up to the standard of the >> commercial offerings of the Windows world? Please bare in mind, that these >> are just my opinions. If you'd like to discuss this further, please contact >> me of list as i think we may be going off topic here. >> >> TC >> >> James >> >> >> On 1 Dec 2009, at 22:10, John G. Heim wrote: >> >>> Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator that >>> would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National >>> Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if >>> Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW Micro >>> out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality >>> of >>> Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those >>> products out of the market. >>> >>> Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued >>> that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy to >>> be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of >>> business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen >>> readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another point >>> against the NFB position. >>> >>> On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or nvda >>> full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Lynn Schneider" >>> To: >>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM >>> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >>> >>> >>> I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never >>> forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn >>> the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame >>> for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to >>> blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. >>> A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic mistake >>> of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of the >>> box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind >>> people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful for >>> all >>> the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. >>> Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for >>> simply >>> suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers take >>> for granted without ha
Re: Economics and the Mac
And that is your opinion as well and I completely disagree with you. However, you as I are entitled to your opinion and having used both windows and the Mac on a regular basis, I find that there are many tasks, which are much easier to perform with VOiceOver than Window-Eyes. I have never used JAWS and of course at this point I wouldn't bother since I'm not interested in learning something new since I can do what I need with what I got. However, with the quick-nav feature of VO, I have found it takes less keystrokes then before. You can argue that interacting is perhaps one issue and with a windows=based screen reader that may be true depending on the screen reader, but at the same time I don't have the multitude of issues with VO as I do with WE when dealing with MSAA. It's obvious JAWS is your preference and honestly that's fine. What matters in the end regardless of whether we agree or not is that you have the tools to get the job done. That is one point I think we can both agree on. On Dec 2, 2009, at 1:23 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they are > used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the > number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, consistency > can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one input > field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of > inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you could > even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have to > download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the > accessibility features come from as long as they work? > > Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your > contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is incorrect. > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Howell" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver is not > up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing windows > and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are very > different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, > Window-Eyes, and any screen reader running on windows or Linux for that > matter. They are all screen readers, like windows or SL share some > similarities, but VoiceOver and JAWS for windows are very different. > Therefore, the supposed standards of JAWS do not apply to VOiceOver and > therefore renders your statement inaccurate. > On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > >> Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator >> that >> would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National >> Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if >> Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW >> Micro >> out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality >> of >> Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those >> products out of the market. >> >> Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued >> that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy >> to >> be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of >> business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen >> readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another point >> against the NFB position. >> >> On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or nvda >> full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Lynn Schneider" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM >> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >> >> >> I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never >> forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn >> the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame >> for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to >> blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. >> A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic >> mistake >> of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of >> the >> box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind &g
Re: Economics and the Mac
That may be true, but how long did you have to wait before Jaws caught up with the industry standards and changes in new trends? Six months? A year? A year and a half? And by the time you got those scripts written, yet another piece of software comes out, mmaking that software virtually obselete; therefore, you have to go back to Square 1, or use the existing technology until Jawscatches upto the changes. Richie Gardenhire, Anchorage, Alaska. On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:11 AM, John G. Heim wrote: 1. Voiceover requires more keystrokes to use than does jaws. 2. Jaws provides greater access to Windows operating system functions than voiceover does for macos. For example, try configuring ldap/ ActiveDirectory authentication on a Mac. - Original Message - From: "James & Nash" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac Hi, I'm not looking to upset anyone, but can I ask why do you think that VO and NVDA are not quite up to the standard set by JFW and We? Mac OS X 10.6 set the VO bar extremely high. This release has made VO a fully functional and viable solution for Blind computer users who wish to use a Mac. I am not saying that improvements do not need to be made, but that goes for all of the Screen Readers on all of the platforms and the operating systems generally. I admit that prior to this, whilst VO was very good, it did not quite hit the mark, and Apple's approach to accessibility seemed to be stagnating - andso I migrated back to Windows. This was a personal choice though. Keep in mind, that; NVDA, Orca and VO work in a very different way to JFW and Window Eyes. All three use object navigation - a concept which allows us as blind users to gain an idea of what our sighted co-workers etc are seeing on the screen. This is a radical concept, and one which Apple has been slammed for pursuing. It is also worth remembering that both Orca and Voice Over are being used on operating systems which are fundamentally and vastly different to Windows, both in concept and design. I do not mean this to be a patronising or condescending E-Mail, I am just curious as to why you think VO is not yet up to the standard of the commercial offerings of the Windows world? Please bare in mind, that these are just my opinions. If you'd like to discuss this further, please contact me of list as i think we may be going off topic here. TC James On 1 Dec 2009, at 22:10, John G. Heim wrote: > Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator > that > would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National > Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if > Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW > Micro > out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the > quality > of > Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those > products out of the market. > > Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I > argued > that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too > crummy > to > be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of > business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen > readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another > point > against the NFB position. > > On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or > nvda > full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. > > ----- Original Message - > From: "Lynn Schneider" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will > never > forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to > just turn > the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to > blame > for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people > are to > blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot > water. > A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic > mistake > of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out > of > the > box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of > blind > people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful > for > all > the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. > Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for > simply > suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers > take > for granted without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, > being > on >
Re: Economics and the Mac
The real deal breaker was voiceover and nvda. Even if you buy the argument that Microsoft might have driven FS and GWM out of business if they'd improved narrator, FS and GWM are facing that same pressure as a result of voiceover and nvda anyway. - Original Message - From: "Chris Hofstader" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:10 AM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac Ted Henter, at the 1996 NFB convention made the argument in a speech he delivered that an MS solution would never be as comprehensive as JAWS or one of the other screen access tools from the niche companies because it would never be their highest priority (you can probably find the entire text of the speech online). In some ways, I think Ted had a point as MS may have built something that's "good enough" for let's say about 80% of blind computer users and, with their market cut by such a huge chunk, JAWS, Window-Eyes, etc. would not have the resources to serve the final 20% who would probably lose jobs as this is the area where the high priced screen readers do outperform more generic solutions. That speech was before Sections 504 and 508 which changes things as the federal government may stop purchasing or upgrading Windows if they do not have a comprehensive solution like JAWS. The Social Security Administration, the single largest employer of blind people in the US, has a whole lot of oddball proprietary software which really need the JAWS or now Window-Eyes scripting facilities to get right. If MS put out a solution that couldn't be customized properly and JAWS stopped developing solutions good enough to meet the needs of SSA, about 1000 blinks could be furloughed until a solution was found. It's all a nasty rat's nest in this biz. A combination of politics, technology, fiscal concerns and monopoly like behavior can be really discouraging. I've definitely spent too much time thinking about and writing emails on this subject the past couple of days than is healthy. I'm really enjoying Mark and the others on this list for making me think hard about these issues but I grow increasingly less hopeful with each email I write as the whole thing looks increasingly grim. cdh On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John G. Him wrote: > Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator > that > would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National > Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if > Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW > Micro > out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality > of > Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those > products out of the market. > > Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued > that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy > to > be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of > business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen > readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another point > against the NFB position. > > On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or nvda > full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. > > - Original Message - > From: "Lynn Schneider" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never > forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn > the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame > for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to > blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. > A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic > mistake > of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of > the > box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind > people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful for > all > the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. > Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for > simply > suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers > take > for granted without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, being > on > this list and seeing all the other blind switchers out there, I feel at > least a tiny bit vindicated, as blind people are starting to see the > benefits of universal access. I really think it is the young blind people > who are going to demand universal access, at l
Re: Economics and the Mac
No, screen readers can be judged subjectively independent of the OS they are used for. For example, a subjective measurement might be a count of the number of keystrokes it takes to complete certain tasks. Also, consistency can be a subjective measurment. Does the same keystroke move from one input field to the next? And finally, you can get an idea of the percentage of inaccessible controls in operating system applications. In fact, you could even include accessibility of third party applications even if you have to download add-ons to make them accessible. After all, who cares where the accessibility features come from as long as they work? Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying that my opinion is right. But your contention that its impossible to compare jaws and voiceover is incorrect. - Original Message - From: "Scott Howell" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:19 PM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver is not up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing windows and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are very different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, Window-Eyes, and any screen reader running on windows or Linux for that matter. They are all screen readers, like windows or SL share some similarities, but VoiceOver and JAWS for windows are very different. Therefore, the supposed standards of JAWS do not apply to VOiceOver and therefore renders your statement inaccurate. On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator > that > would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National > Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if > Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW > Micro > out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality > of > Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those > products out of the market. > > Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued > that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy > to > be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of > business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen > readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another point > against the NFB position. > > On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or nvda > full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Lynn Schneider" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never > forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn > the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame > for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to > blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. > A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic > mistake > of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of > the > box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind > people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful for > all > the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. > Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for > simply > suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers > take > for granted without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, being > on > this list and seeing all the other blind switchers out there, I feel at > least a tiny bit vindicated, as blind people are starting to see the > benefits of universal access. I really think it is the young blind people > who are going to demand universal access, at least I hope so. They are > the > ones who are going to benefit most from being able to buy an iPhone or > iPod > Touch like their peers and just start using the thing, and they are > hopefully going to demand more of that. With chips being so cheap now, > there is absolutely no reason why universal access cannot be built right > into things. The best thing we can all do is to spread the word far and > wide about what Apple has been able to accomplish with their products and > make them an example of what can be. > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > >> I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at &
Re: Economics and the Mac
1. Voiceover requires more keystrokes to use than does jaws. 2. Jaws provides greater access to Windows operating system functions than voiceover does for macos. For example, try configuring ldap/ActiveDirectory authentication on a Mac. - Original Message - From: "James & Nash" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac Hi, I'm not looking to upset anyone, but can I ask why do you think that VO and NVDA are not quite up to the standard set by JFW and We? Mac OS X 10.6 set the VO bar extremely high. This release has made VO a fully functional and viable solution for Blind computer users who wish to use a Mac. I am not saying that improvements do not need to be made, but that goes for all of the Screen Readers on all of the platforms and the operating systems generally. I admit that prior to this, whilst VO was very good, it did not quite hit the mark, and Apple's approach to accessibility seemed to be stagnating - andso I migrated back to Windows. This was a personal choice though. Keep in mind, that; NVDA, Orca and VO work in a very different way to JFW and Window Eyes. All three use object navigation - a concept which allows us as blind users to gain an idea of what our sighted co-workers etc are seeing on the screen. This is a radical concept, and one which Apple has been slammed for pursuing. It is also worth remembering that both Orca and Voice Over are being used on operating systems which are fundamentally and vastly different to Windows, both in concept and design. I do not mean this to be a patronising or condescending E-Mail, I am just curious as to why you think VO is not yet up to the standard of the commercial offerings of the Windows world? Please bare in mind, that these are just my opinions. If you'd like to discuss this further, please contact me of list as i think we may be going off topic here. TC James On 1 Dec 2009, at 22:10, John G. Heim wrote: > Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator > that > would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National > Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if > Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW > Micro > out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality > of > Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those > products out of the market. > > Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued > that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy > to > be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of > business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen > readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another point > against the NFB position. > > On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or nvda > full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. > > ----- Original Message - > From: "Lynn Schneider" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never > forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn > the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame > for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to > blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. > A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic > mistake > of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of > the > box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind > people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful for > all > the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. > Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for > simply > suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers > take > for granted without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, being > on > this list and seeing all the other blind switchers out there, I feel at > least a tiny bit vindicated, as blind people are starting to see the > benefits of universal access. I really think it is the young blind people > who are going to demand universal access, at least I hope so. They are > the > ones who are going to benefit most from being able to buy an iPhone or > iPod > Touch like their peers and just start using the thing, and they are > hopefully going to demand more of that. With chips being so cheap now, > there is absolutely no reason why universal acces
Re: Economics and the Mac
If you don't like JAWS in spreadsheets then you will hate Macintosh in similar programs. JAWS provides a ton of semantically interesting ways to navigate in Excel. You can get lists of cells with data, set row and column headings and have them follow you to files with similar titles, have multiple "regions" on a sheet with multiple tables, read the data in charts and graphs, do all sorts of interesting things on a braille line to optimize use of that expensive real estate, etc. Just hit JAWSKEY+V to bring up the verbosity dialogue or pop up JAWS hot key help for Excel and you'll find dozens of features unavailable in any other screen reader although Window-Eyes is catching up in spite of FS hitting them with a patent suit regarding augmented information in a spreadsheet. I didn't know about these buttons in cells but I'd bet if you can access them through VB script then you can get at them with a slight change to the JAWS scripts. If you look into the VB object model for Excel and find this item, send it to Eric Damery at FS and he'll probably get it into the Excel scripts very quickly. The web 2.0 stuff, if it follows the Aria guidelines (you can find it at www.w3c.org/wai) actually work quite good with JAWS but far less well with all other screen readers. Because there are official guidelines, it shouldn't be too hard for the other screen access tools to catch up but, as is often the case, FS got IBM to pay them big time consulting dollars to add Aria support to JAWS so they could deploy some stuff and have an accessibility solution ripe and ready. Overall, I find the Macintosh to provide a really superior experience but it has its limitations. One could probably add features very similar to the cool stuff JAWS does in excel to VO plus OpenOffice using any number of interesting techniques but it would take a pretty solid screen reader hacker with an understanding of the guts of both VO and OO to pull it off and, sadly, I don't think there are too many people really diving into the hardcore technical side of Macintosh accessibility who do not work for Apple. cdh On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:52 AM, John W. Carty wrote: > Could you please discuss spreadsheet limits using vo in more detail. I'm > struggling to make the move to a mac and I use a lot of spreadsheets. > > I work in an environment that uses a lot of spreadsheets and I've always been > disappointed with jaws support for excel. In a professional environment I > encounter spreadsheets almost daily that uses vba buttons embedded in cells > that jaws cannot see. this has been a problem forever and fs has never done > anything to solve this issue thru out office not just excel. > > I believe web 2.0 is going to reek havoc for screen reader users for many > years regardless of the screen reader. > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Hofstader [mailto:c...@hofstader.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:22 AM > To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > I think VO does a poor job with spreadsheets, containing none of the semantic > navigation features in JAWS or WE. It generally does a hardly adequate job > in all tabular constructs and struggles with complex web 2.0 apps like > googledocs. > On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:47 PM, James & Nash wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm not looking to upset anyone, but can I ask why do you think that VO and >> NVDA are not quite up to the standard set by JFW and We? >> >> Mac OS X 10.6 set the VO bar extremely high. This release has made VO a >> fully functional and viable solution for Blind computer users who wish to >> use a Mac. I am not saying that improvements do not need to be made, but >> that goes for all of the Screen Readers on all of the platforms and the >> operating systems generally. I admit that prior to this, whilst VO was very >> good, it did not quite hit the mark, and Apple's approach to accessibility >> seemed to be stagnating - and so I migrated back to Windows. This was a >> personal choice though. >> >> Keep in mind, that; NVDA, Orca and VO work in a very different way to JFW >> and Window Eyes. All three use object navigation - a concept which allows us >> as blind users to gain an idea of what our sighted co-workers etc are seeing >> on the screen. This is a radical concept, and one which Apple has been >> slammed for pursuing. It is also worth remembering that both Orca and Voice >> Over are being used on operating systems which are fundamentally and vastly >> different to Windows, both in concept and design. >> >> I do not mean this to be a patronising or condescending E-Mail, I a
RE: Economics and the Mac
Could you please discuss spreadsheet limits using vo in more detail. I'm struggling to make the move to a mac and I use a lot of spreadsheets. I work in an environment that uses a lot of spreadsheets and I've always been disappointed with jaws support for excel. In a professional environment I encounter spreadsheets almost daily that uses vba buttons embedded in cells that jaws cannot see. this has been a problem forever and fs has never done anything to solve this issue thru out office not just excel. I believe web 2.0 is going to reek havoc for screen reader users for many years regardless of the screen reader. -Original Message- From: Chris Hofstader [mailto:c...@hofstader.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:22 AM To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac I think VO does a poor job with spreadsheets, containing none of the semantic navigation features in JAWS or WE. It generally does a hardly adequate job in all tabular constructs and struggles with complex web 2.0 apps like googledocs. On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:47 PM, James & Nash wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not looking to upset anyone, but can I ask why do you think that VO and > NVDA are not quite up to the standard set by JFW and We? > > Mac OS X 10.6 set the VO bar extremely high. This release has made VO a fully > functional and viable solution for Blind computer users who wish to use a > Mac. I am not saying that improvements do not need to be made, but that goes > for all of the Screen Readers on all of the platforms and the operating > systems generally. I admit that prior to this, whilst VO was very good, it > did not quite hit the mark, and Apple's approach to accessibility seemed to > be stagnating - and so I migrated back to Windows. This was a personal choice > though. > > Keep in mind, that; NVDA, Orca and VO work in a very different way to JFW and > Window Eyes. All three use object navigation - a concept which allows us as > blind users to gain an idea of what our sighted co-workers etc are seeing on > the screen. This is a radical concept, and one which Apple has been slammed > for pursuing. It is also worth remembering that both Orca and Voice Over are > being used on operating systems which are fundamentally and vastly different > to Windows, both in concept and design. > > I do not mean this to be a patronising or condescending E-Mail, I am just > curious as to why you think VO is not yet up to the standard of the > commercial offerings of the Windows world? Please bare in mind, that these > are just my opinions. If you'd like to discuss this further, please contact > me of list as i think we may be going off topic here. > > TC > > James > > > On 1 Dec 2009, at 22:10, John G. Heim wrote: > >> Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator that >> would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National >> Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if >> Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW Micro >> out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality of >> Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those >> products out of the market. >> >> Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued >> that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy to >> be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of >> business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen >> readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another point >> against the NFB position. >> >> On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or nvda >> full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Lynn Schneider" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM >> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >> >> >> I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never >> forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn >> the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame >> for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to >> blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. >> A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic mistake >> of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of the >> box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind >> people basically sa
Re: Economics and the Mac
I think VO does a poor job with spreadsheets, containing none of the semantic navigation features in JAWS or WE. It generally does a hardly adequate job in all tabular constructs and struggles with complex web 2.0 apps like googledocs. On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:47 PM, James & Nash wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not looking to upset anyone, but can I ask why do you think that VO and > NVDA are not quite up to the standard set by JFW and We? > > Mac OS X 10.6 set the VO bar extremely high. This release has made VO a fully > functional and viable solution for Blind computer users who wish to use a > Mac. I am not saying that improvements do not need to be made, but that goes > for all of the Screen Readers on all of the platforms and the operating > systems generally. I admit that prior to this, whilst VO was very good, it > did not quite hit the mark, and Apple's approach to accessibility seemed to > be stagnating - and so I migrated back to Windows. This was a personal choice > though. > > Keep in mind, that; NVDA, Orca and VO work in a very different way to JFW and > Window Eyes. All three use object navigation - a concept which allows us as > blind users to gain an idea of what our sighted co-workers etc are seeing on > the screen. This is a radical concept, and one which Apple has been slammed > for pursuing. It is also worth remembering that both Orca and Voice Over are > being used on operating systems which are fundamentally and vastly different > to Windows, both in concept and design. > > I do not mean this to be a patronising or condescending E-Mail, I am just > curious as to why you think VO is not yet up to the standard of the > commercial offerings of the Windows world? Please bare in mind, that these > are just my opinions. If you'd like to discuss this further, please contact > me of list as i think we may be going off topic here. > > TC > > James > > > On 1 Dec 2009, at 22:10, John G. Heim wrote: > >> Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator that >> would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National >> Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if >> Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW Micro >> out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality of >> Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those >> products out of the market. >> >> Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued >> that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy to >> be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of >> business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen >> readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another point >> against the NFB position. >> >> On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or nvda >> full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Lynn Schneider" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM >> Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac >> >> >> I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never >> forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn >> the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame >> for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to >> blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. >> A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic mistake >> of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of the >> box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind >> people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful for all >> the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. >> Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for simply >> suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers take >> for granted without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, being on >> this list and seeing all the other blind switchers out there, I feel at >> least a tiny bit vindicated, as blind people are starting to see the >> benefits of universal access. I really think it is the young blind people >> who are going to demand universal access, at least I hope so. They are the >> ones who are going to benefit most from being able to buy an
Re: Economics and the Mac
Ted Henter, at the 1996 NFB convention made the argument in a speech he delivered that an MS solution would never be as comprehensive as JAWS or one of the other screen access tools from the niche companies because it would never be their highest priority (you can probably find the entire text of the speech online). In some ways, I think Ted had a point as MS may have built something that's "good enough" for let's say about 80% of blind computer users and, with their market cut by such a huge chunk, JAWS, Window-Eyes, etc. would not have the resources to serve the final 20% who would probably lose jobs as this is the area where the high priced screen readers do outperform more generic solutions. That speech was before Sections 504 and 508 which changes things as the federal government may stop purchasing or upgrading Windows if they do not have a comprehensive solution like JAWS. The Social Security Administration, the single largest employer of blind people in the US, has a whole lot of oddball proprietary software which really need the JAWS or now Window-Eyes scripting facilities to get right. If MS put out a solution that couldn't be customized properly and JAWS stopped developing solutions good enough to meet the needs of SSA, about 1000 blinks could be furloughed until a solution was found. It's all a nasty rat's nest in this biz. A combination of politics, technology, fiscal concerns and monopoly like behavior can be really discouraging. I've definitely spent too much time thinking about and writing emails on this subject the past couple of days than is healthy. I'm really enjoying Mark and the others on this list for making me think hard about these issues but I grow increasingly less hopeful with each email I write as the whole thing looks increasingly grim. cdh On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John G. Him wrote: > Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator that > would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National > Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if > Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW Micro > out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality of > Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those > products out of the market. > > Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued > that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy to > be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of > business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen > readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another point > against the NFB position. > > On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or nvda > full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. > > - Original Message - > From: "Lynn Schneider" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never > forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn > the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame > for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to > blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. > A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic mistake > of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of the > box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind > people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful for all > the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. > Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for simply > suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers take > for granted without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, being on > this list and seeing all the other blind switchers out there, I feel at > least a tiny bit vindicated, as blind people are starting to see the > benefits of universal access. I really think it is the young blind people > who are going to demand universal access, at least I hope so. They are the > ones who are going to benefit most from being able to buy an iPhone or iPod > Touch like their peers and just start using the thing, and they are > hopefully going to demand more of that. With chips being so cheap now, > there is absolutely no reason why universal access cannot be built right > into things. The best thing we can all do is to spread the word far and > wide ab
Re: Economics and the Mac
John, I think that is a very unfair statement. To say that VoiceOver is not up to the standard set by JAWS is inaccurate. That is like comparing windows and the Mac OS. Sure, they both are operating systems, but they are very different and that holds true with VoiceOver as compared to JAWS, Window-Eyes, and any screen reader running on windows or Linux for that matter. They are all screen readers, like windows or SL share some similarities, but VoiceOver and JAWS for windows are very different. Therefore, the supposed standards of JAWS do not apply to VOiceOver and therefore renders your statement inaccurate. On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:10 PM, John G. Heim wrote: > Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator that > would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National > Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if > Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW Micro > out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality of > Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those > products out of the market. > > Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued > that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy to > be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of > business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen > readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another point > against the NFB position. > > On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or nvda > full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. > > - Original Message - > From: "Lynn Schneider" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never > forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn > the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame > for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to > blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. > A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic mistake > of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of the > box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind > people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful for all > the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. > Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for simply > suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers take > for granted without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, being on > this list and seeing all the other blind switchers out there, I feel at > least a tiny bit vindicated, as blind people are starting to see the > benefits of universal access. I really think it is the young blind people > who are going to demand universal access, at least I hope so. They are the > ones who are going to benefit most from being able to buy an iPhone or iPod > Touch like their peers and just start using the thing, and they are > hopefully going to demand more of that. With chips being so cheap now, > there is absolutely no reason why universal access cannot be built right > into things. The best thing we can all do is to spread the word far and > wide about what Apple has been able to accomplish with their products and > make them an example of what can be. > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > >> I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at >> hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers >> universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why >> Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the >> technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it >> brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a >> mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without >> sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be >> forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their >> economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax >> dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what >> it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market >> is because they have contracted with some state agencies and >> government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense
Re: Economics and the Mac
Freedom Scientific is a large company; for NFB to step in and say to Microsoft to stay out of the screenreading business, is in and of itself, telling me they have a stake in what FS or GW Micro does with regard to their marketshares. And while these companies have a place in the market, they like other companies vying for the screenreader market and if they are driven out of business, it's not because they don't have viable products; they simply refuse to go with the trend. By the time scripts are written for their screenreaders to keep pace with the market trends, something else will come along and we have to wait six months to a year, and sometimes longer, before we are able to take full advantage ofsoftware that is out there in the mainstream. The same could be said of braille displaysand embossers. Richie Gardenhire, Anchorage, Alaska. On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:10 PM, John G. Heim wrote: Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator that would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW Micro out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality of Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those products out of the market. Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy to be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another point against the NFB position. On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or nvda full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. - Original Message - From: "Lynn Schneider" To: Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic mistake of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of the box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful for all the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for simply suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers take for granted without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, being on this list and seeing all the other blind switchers out there, I feel at least a tiny bit vindicated, as blind people are starting to see the benefits of universal access. I really think it is the young blind people who are going to demand universal access, at least I hope so. They are the ones who are going to benefit most from being able to buy an iPhone or iPod Touch like their peers and just start using the thing, and they are hopefully going to demand more of that. With chips being so cheap now, there is absolutely no reason why universal access cannot be built right into things. The best thing we can all do is to spread the word far and wide about what Apple has been able to accomplish with their products and make them an example of what can be. On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. > I paid less for my car than I
Re: Economics and the Mac
Hi, I'm not looking to upset anyone, but can I ask why do you think that VO and NVDA are not quite up to the standard set by JFW and We? Mac OS X 10.6 set the VO bar extremely high. This release has made VO a fully functional and viable solution for Blind computer users who wish to use a Mac. I am not saying that improvements do not need to be made, but that goes for all of the Screen Readers on all of the platforms and the operating systems generally. I admit that prior to this, whilst VO was very good, it did not quite hit the mark, and Apple's approach to accessibility seemed to be stagnating - andso I migrated back to Windows. This was a personal choice though. Keep in mind, that; NVDA, Orca and VO work in a very different way to JFW and Window Eyes. All three use object navigation - a concept which allows us as blind users to gain an idea of what our sighted co-workers etc are seeing on the screen. This is a radical concept, and one which Apple has been slammed for pursuing. It is also worth remembering that both Orca and Voice Over are being used on operating systems which are fundamentally and vastly different to Windows, both in concept and design. I do not mean this to be a patronising or condescending E-Mail, I am just curious as to why you think VO is not yet up to the standard of the commercial offerings of the Windows world? Please bare in mind, that these are just my opinions. If you'd like to discuss this further, please contact me of list as i think we may be going off topic here. TC James On 1 Dec 2009, at 22:10, John G. Heim wrote: > Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator that > would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National > Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if > Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW Micro > out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality of > Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those > products out of the market. > > Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued > that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy to > be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of > business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen > readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another point > against the NFB position. > > On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or nvda > full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Lynn Schneider" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM > Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac > > > I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never > forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn > the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame > for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to > blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. > A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic mistake > of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of the > box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind > people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful for all > the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. > Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for simply > suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers take > for granted without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, being on > this list and seeing all the other blind switchers out there, I feel at > least a tiny bit vindicated, as blind people are starting to see the > benefits of universal access. I really think it is the young blind people > who are going to demand universal access, at least I hope so. They are the > ones who are going to benefit most from being able to buy an iPhone or iPod > Touch like their peers and just start using the thing, and they are > hopefully going to demand more of that. With chips being so cheap now, > there is absolutely no reason why universal access cannot be built right > into things. The best thing we can all do is to spread the word far and > wide about what Apple has been able to accomplish with their products and > make them an example of what can be. > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > >> I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at >> hand. If Apple can set aside resources
Re: Economics and the Mac
That's why I'm able to sit here and write this;My employer changed its software and I've had nothing but problems since. I won't go into details, but for the most part, I've been out of work for months now. I've often commented that if they only had Apple based software, I don't think we would have had as many issues for the poor programmer to work out. The people that make the new/primitive software don't even have it ready for Windows 7 yet as we found out the hard way. Unfortunately the software used is Windows based only. I had about 3 weeks notice that they were changing the software, but even with that much notice, we weren't able to access it until it was installed and being used on the floor. On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > yet another problem for blind and visually-impaired workers is, > technology is changing so rapidly, by the time you getsaid > screenreader, or even hardware, your machine is either outdated or the > technology for it becomes obsolete, and companies pull support without > notice which, leaves sort of an unfair advantage in favor of off-the- > shelf technology. And that is where Macs and VoiceOver has started > cutting into the marketshare. If I, for example, were a rehab > counselor, and I found or discovered that my client can do his/her job > adequately with VoiceOver, my tendency would be to go with the product > that is most economical for my dollars appropriated to me; most of the > time VoiceOver would win out. Every screenreader, albeit a Microsoft > or Apple product, has its good points; the choices we make will > largely depend upon our knowledge of said product and our knowledge of > capitalistic economics. And like everything else, economics has its > ambiguities, some we may or may not understand; the bottom line here > is, counselors should be informed just as much as clients so that > state agencies aren't wasting moneyon something that would be of no > use to the client for present or future purposes. Richie Gardenhire, > Anchorage, Alaska. > On Dec 1, 2009, at 12:03 PM, carlene knight wrote: > > One thing that needs to be addressed here is that there are employers > who can't afford to provide the necessary items needed for their > visually impaired employees to do the job. Whether you think that's > just an excuse for them or not, The bottom line is that I didn't have > access to computers etc to do the job without assistance. I am one of > those that do work at a call center and without an $8000.00 Braille > display at $1200.00 screen reader, Kurtzweil software for scanning, a > scanner, a printer, and tons of time for a programmer, I wouldn't be > able to perform this job and there is no way that I could have > afforded a quarter of this stuff on my own. Maybe with a flex account > I could pay it back in a few years, but something tells me they would > want it back sooner than that. Again, I don't expect this to turn > into a pity party, but you have to see both sides of the coin. > > > On Dec 1, 2009, at 6:09 AM, Chris Hofstader wrote: > >> I CC'd the bs list on this post and I think we should probably move >> it there... >> >> The operative phrase in your post is "from your employer" which >> points us to a chicken and egg problem - people can't get jobs until >> they learn to use a screen reader and they can't really get a screen >> reader (or computer on which to use it) until they get a job. In >> most cases, employers are compelled to buy the AT for the person >> with a disability but, more often than anyone would like to admit, >> the technology cannot provide access to some of the tools necessary >> to do a specific job or, to an even greater extent, to use the tools >> one needs to get a promotion (project management software is an >> example where there is no known solution for screen reader users). >> >> There is the additional problem of where do blinks without an >> aptitude for computers, office type work, professional education >> (law school for instance) and even an undergraduate degree in an >> area in which they can shine. >> >> People without vision impairment can go into very noble careers that >> pay very well and in some areas carry excellent union benefits like >> becoming a plumber, electrician, carpenter, landscaper, tree >> surgeon, auto mechanic and many other lucrative ways to earn a >> living that do not require the skills of a white collar job. As >> blinks, we have a big gap between call center worker at a bit over >> minimum wage all the way to software engineer/IT pro, lawyer, >> linguist/translator and other very high skilled professions. >> >> Plain and simply, while, as the quote from Caddyshack goes, "The >> world needs ditch diggers" and people with vision impairment aren't >> qualified to dig ditches. >> >> So, until AT moves forward by a number of really huge s
Re: Economics and the Mac
yet another problem for blind and visually-impaired workers is, technology is changing so rapidly, by the time you getsaid screenreader, or even hardware, your machine is either outdated or the technology for it becomes obsolete, and companies pull support without notice which, leaves sort of an unfair advantage in favor of off-the- shelf technology. And that is where Macs and VoiceOver has started cutting into the marketshare. If I, for example, were a rehab counselor, and I found or discovered that my client can do his/her job adequately with VoiceOver, my tendency would be to go with the product that is most economical for my dollars appropriated to me; most of the time VoiceOver would win out. Every screenreader, albeit a Microsoft or Apple product, has its good points; the choices we make will largely depend upon our knowledge of said product and our knowledge of capitalistic economics. And like everything else, economics has its ambiguities, some we may or may not understand; the bottom line here is, counselors should be informed just as much as clients so that state agencies aren't wasting moneyon something that would be of no use to the client for present or future purposes. Richie Gardenhire, Anchorage, Alaska. On Dec 1, 2009, at 12:03 PM, carlene knight wrote: One thing that needs to be addressed here is that there are employers who can't afford to provide the necessary items needed for their visually impaired employees to do the job. Whether you think that's just an excuse for them or not, The bottom line is that I didn't have access to computers etc to do the job without assistance. I am one of those that do work at a call center and without an $8000.00 Braille display at $1200.00 screen reader, Kurtzweil software for scanning, a scanner, a printer, and tons of time for a programmer, I wouldn't be able to perform this job and there is no way that I could have afforded a quarter of this stuff on my own. Maybe with a flex account I could pay it back in a few years, but something tells me they would want it back sooner than that. Again, I don't expect this to turn into a pity party, but you have to see both sides of the coin. On Dec 1, 2009, at 6:09 AM, Chris Hofstader wrote: > I CC'd the bs list on this post and I think we should probably move > it there... > > The operative phrase in your post is "from your employer" which > points us to a chicken and egg problem - people can't get jobs until > they learn to use a screen reader and they can't really get a screen > reader (or computer on which to use it) until they get a job. In > most cases, employers are compelled to buy the AT for the person > with a disability but, more often than anyone would like to admit, > the technology cannot provide access to some of the tools necessary > to do a specific job or, to an even greater extent, to use the tools > one needs to get a promotion (project management software is an > example where there is no known solution for screen reader users). > > There is the additional problem of where do blinks without an > aptitude for computers, office type work, professional education > (law school for instance) and even an undergraduate degree in an > area in which they can shine. > > People without vision impairment can go into very noble careers that > pay very well and in some areas carry excellent union benefits like > becoming a plumber, electrician, carpenter, landscaper, tree > surgeon, auto mechanic and many other lucrative ways to earn a > living that do not require the skills of a white collar job. As > blinks, we have a big gap between call center worker at a bit over > minimum wage all the way to software engineer/IT pro, lawyer, > linguist/translator and other very high skilled professions. > > Plain and simply, while, as the quote from Caddyshack goes, "The > world needs ditch diggers" and people with vision impairment aren't > qualified to dig ditches. > > So, until AT moves forward by a number of really huge steps, blinks > with an aptitude for stocking shelves at Wal-Mart are out of luck. > Moderately retarded individuals who can see can actually get some > sort of job that pays minimum wage but a person with vision > impairment without an education for a white collar job, a job for > which they may have no talent, are SOL. > > cdh > > > > On Dec 1, 2009, at 6:10 AM, Scott Howell wrote: > >> Ah lets not mix issues here. I think there is a good argument to an >> insurance company paying some portion of a screen reader if they >> cover things like wheelchairs etc. At the risk of spinning this >> into an issue of politics, one is something you have no control >> over and the other you do to a larger extent. The point is we don't >> necessarily need the government paying for any of it. Now on the >> other hand, if you happen to have a flexible spending account as a
Re: Economics and the Mac
There is a new organization called the International Association of Visually Impaired Technologists that is planning on addressing some of these issues. I actually am the President of the group. http://www.iavit.org/ - Original Message - From: "Les Kriegler" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:16 AM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac Hi Lynn, Well-said. There are many blind individuals who wish to keep the status quo, and anybody who suggests otherwise is often criticized. I've been on enough lists to see that happen. It's a pleasure being on this list, as the intent of the list has really been maintained, to help each other access Mac systems. Best, Les -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
Several years ago, Microsoft began working on improvements to narrator that would make it a realistically usable screen reader. But the National Federation of the Blind asked them to stop. The reasoning was that if Microsoft improved narrator, it might drive Freedom Scientific and GW Micro out of business. They thought that narrator would never reach the quality of Jaws and window-eyes yet it might still be good enough to drive those products out of the market. Obviously, that decision was somewhat controversial at the time. I argued that it made no sense to think that narrator could be at once too crummy to be used and at the same time good enough to drive jFS and GWM out of business. I didn't anticipate the development of the other free screen readers, voiceover, nvda, and orca. But certainly, that's another point against the NFB position. On the other hand, I don't think I'd like to switch to voiceover or nvda full-time. They are not quite up to the standard set by jaws yet. - Original Message - From: "Lynn Schneider" To: Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:54 PM Subject: Re: Economics and the Mac I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic mistake of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of the box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful for all the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for simply suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers take for granted without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, being on this list and seeing all the other blind switchers out there, I feel at least a tiny bit vindicated, as blind people are starting to see the benefits of universal access. I really think it is the young blind people who are going to demand universal access, at least I hope so. They are the ones who are going to benefit most from being able to buy an iPhone or iPod Touch like their peers and just start using the thing, and they are hopefully going to demand more of that. With chips being so cheap now, there is absolutely no reason why universal access cannot be built right into things. The best thing we can all do is to spread the word far and wide about what Apple has been able to accomplish with their products and make them an example of what can be. On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. > I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 > to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest > majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby > boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for > the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind > kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them > Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could > probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of > us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis > increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, > Anchorage, Alaska. > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: > > I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they > have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why &
Re: Economics and the Mac
One thing that needs to be addressed here is that there are employers who can't afford to provide the necessary items needed for their visually impaired employees to do the job. Whether you think that's just an excuse for them or not, The bottom line is that I didn't have access to computers etc to do the job without assistance. I am one of those that do work at a call center and without an $8000.00 Braille display at $1200.00 screen reader, Kurtzweil software for scanning, a scanner, a printer, and tons of time for a programmer, I wouldn't be able to perform this job and there is no way that I could have afforded a quarter of this stuff on my own. Maybe with a flex account I could pay it back in a few years, but something tells me they would want it back sooner than that. Again, I don't expect this to turn into a pity party, but you have to see both sides of the coin. On Dec 1, 2009, at 6:09 AM, Chris Hofstader wrote: > I CC'd the bs list on this post and I think we should probably move it > there... > > The operative phrase in your post is "from your employer" which points us to > a chicken and egg problem - people can't get jobs until they learn to use a > screen reader and they can't really get a screen reader (or computer on which > to use it) until they get a job. In most cases, employers are compelled to > buy the AT for the person with a disability but, more often than anyone would > like to admit, the technology cannot provide access to some of the tools > necessary to do a specific job or, to an even greater extent, to use the > tools one needs to get a promotion (project management software is an example > where there is no known solution for screen reader users). > > There is the additional problem of where do blinks without an aptitude for > computers, office type work, professional education (law school for instance) > and even an undergraduate degree in an area in which they can shine. > > People without vision impairment can go into very noble careers that pay very > well and in some areas carry excellent union benefits like becoming a > plumber, electrician, carpenter, landscaper, tree surgeon, auto mechanic and > many other lucrative ways to earn a living that do not require the skills of > a white collar job. As blinks, we have a big gap between call center worker > at a bit over minimum wage all the way to software engineer/IT pro, lawyer, > linguist/translator and other very high skilled professions. > > Plain and simply, while, as the quote from Caddyshack goes, "The world needs > ditch diggers" and people with vision impairment aren't qualified to dig > ditches. > > So, until AT moves forward by a number of really huge steps, blinks with an > aptitude for stocking shelves at Wal-Mart are out of luck. Moderately > retarded individuals who can see can actually get some sort of job that pays > minimum wage but a person with vision impairment without an education for a > white collar job, a job for which they may have no talent, are SOL. > > cdh > > > > On Dec 1, 2009, at 6:10 AM, Scott Howell wrote: > >> Ah lets not mix issues here. I think there is a good argument to an >> insurance company paying some portion of a screen reader if they cover >> things like wheelchairs etc. At the risk of spinning this into an issue of >> politics, one is something you have no control over and the other you do to >> a larger extent. The point is we don't necessarily need the government >> paying for any of it. Now on the other hand, if you happen to have a >> flexible spending account as a benefit from your employer, certain adaptive >> technology can be paid for and reimbursed from your flexible spending >> account, which includes food for your dog guide and other such things. If >> you look at the IRS web site, you can locate information about this. At >> least in this case, you could pay for some items with pre-tax money. >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:25 PM, Mark BurningHawk Baxter wrote: >> >>> Are you kidding? they won't even pay for abortions for women who >>> really need them, I doubt anything funded by *our* government will pay >>> for a screen reader. >>> >>> >>> Mark BurningHawk Baxter >>> >>> Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 >>> MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com >>> My home page: >>> http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ >>> >>> -- >>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MacVisionaries" group. >> To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe
Re: Economics and the Mac
mark, that is a very good question and one if I can find sufficient time, I'd like to dig into. I think it would make sense that a product such as the Mac fit into this category because of the universal access. I think you could argue either way, but likely the argument would still lean more toward including it as an adaptive solution and gee it wouldn't really cost that much more than a stand-alone screen reader either. :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
Okay, so I let my disgust for the governments' disregard for women spill over onto the list, but having seen far too many women scarred by abuse and saddled with kids they didn't want because of ... well, let's just say I land on the feminist side of this one all the way. But, that having been said, I'd LOVE to get my $50/month dog food bill paid for, but would they pay for a whole Mac, or just VO, in which case wouldn't paying for just the screen-reader reinforce the position of FS and others who make a separate one, instead of incorporating it into a universal access design? Mark BurningHawk Baxter Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com My home page: http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
This touches on something I neglected to say (shocking, isn't it? :) ) yesterday: Thinking outside the box, especially when around the sighted, often creates jealousy. This creates even more alienation; if you threatened the power elite by showing them that their power is at best illusory, they tend to want to kill you rather than embrace your message. How many people have been assassinated for this reason, right? So, even if you do believe that education of the sighted is a possibility, an achievable goal, when you finally do convince the sighted that the "disability," they saddled you with isn't really so much a disability as a temporary stumbling block, and may even be an advantage at times (I can't tell you how many mountains and trails I and my various dogs have led sighted people off when darkness came), they often want to make the box even more ... boxy ... than before, not less. One of the reasons why I don't have a large peer group (or ... any peer group *grin*), I think, (and I realize I'm being too prideful here, for which I apologize) is that I have a lot of abilities that the people around me either don't have or have in lesser degree. It confuses hell out of your every day person when you can lead them off the mountain in the rain and the dark, but you need help with something simple, like an unfamiliar ATM or something. While the strong are not afraid of their weaknesses, this dynamic view of strength is not the norm. The more able you get, often the more alien you become. Mark BurningHawk Baxter Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com My home page: http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
The Windows AT vendors and to a large extent some of the advocacy groups argue that MS should not try to include accessibility out of the box. The AT vendors want, of course to protect their turf, but do so with the notion that MS will screw it up and cannot be relied upon to actually make it work. The advocacy organizations hold similar beliefs as they have been promised a lot by MS for MSAA and UIA but have been left pretty short. Lastly, the MS people have been threatened with anti-trust compalints in both the US and EU if they added AT as it could destroy the software portion of the market. Now, to counter this, MS is saying that Apple has VO so they need to include their own screen reader to be competitive. Rumors abound as to whom MS is talking about acquiring a screen reader, my bet is on System Access but I'm usually wrong when gambling on results from MS. cdh On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. > I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 > to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest > majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby > boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for > the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind > kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them > Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could > probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of > us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis > increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, > Anchorage, Alaska. > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: > > I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they > have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why > I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and > secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but > FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed > market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating > that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics > ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if > ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enough > of them to make it worth their while. There is a cell phone put out > by Capital Accessibility in Europe. I've seen one and it's no big > deal. The speech is great, but there is no camera, digital screen, or > anything that might ad a bit of a price to the phone. It's built like > a brick, but it is over $500 and though the speech is clear, it's very > robotic. Tell me that's not ridiculous? I don't know that agencies > are responsible for this one, but the phone is so tailored to our > needs that somebody will buy it. Not me. Granted, if more people > were learning braille and speech software as they were dealing with > macular degeneration, and there was a big enough demand for it, things > might come down a bit. That's great about the scanner. I'd better > stop typing now as I am misspelling more things than I am typing > correctly and am about to throw this keyboard, though it's not at fault. > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > >> With all due respect, that argument has been used time and time >> again. To that, I say this: the best example of a product that has >> gone down in price because of the acceptance of it by the sighted >> community, is the optical scanner, which was originally intended for >> use by the blind for scanning newspapers, magazines, and othr >> documents in their computers or reading machines. Back then, you had >> to pay thousands of dolars for the machine, and ys, state agencies >> bought it for us, if we were lucky. Now, one can buy a scanner and to >> a certain extent, so
Re: Economics and the Mac
I CC'd the bs list on this post and I think we should probably move it there... The operative phrase in your post is "from your employer" which points us to a chicken and egg problem - people can't get jobs until they learn to use a screen reader and they can't really get a screen reader (or computer on which to use it) until they get a job. In most cases, employers are compelled to buy the AT for the person with a disability but, more often than anyone would like to admit, the technology cannot provide access to some of the tools necessary to do a specific job or, to an even greater extent, to use the tools one needs to get a promotion (project management software is an example where there is no known solution for screen reader users). There is the additional problem of where do blinks without an aptitude for computers, office type work, professional education (law school for instance) and even an undergraduate degree in an area in which they can shine. People without vision impairment can go into very noble careers that pay very well and in some areas carry excellent union benefits like becoming a plumber, electrician, carpenter, landscaper, tree surgeon, auto mechanic and many other lucrative ways to earn a living that do not require the skills of a white collar job. As blinks, we have a big gap between call center worker at a bit over minimum wage all the way to software engineer/IT pro, lawyer, linguist/translator and other very high skilled professions. Plain and simply, while, as the quote from Caddyshack goes, "The world needs ditch diggers" and people with vision impairment aren't qualified to dig ditches. So, until AT moves forward by a number of really huge steps, blinks with an aptitude for stocking shelves at Wal-Mart are out of luck. Moderately retarded individuals who can see can actually get some sort of job that pays minimum wage but a person with vision impairment without an education for a white collar job, a job for which they may have no talent, are SOL. cdh On Dec 1, 2009, at 6:10 AM, Scott Howell wrote: > Ah lets not mix issues here. I think there is a good argument to an insurance > company paying some portion of a screen reader if they cover things like > wheelchairs etc. At the risk of spinning this into an issue of politics, one > is something you have no control over and the other you do to a larger > extent. The point is we don't necessarily need the government paying for any > of it. Now on the other hand, if you happen to have a flexible spending > account as a benefit from your employer, certain adaptive technology can be > paid for and reimbursed from your flexible spending account, which includes > food for your dog guide and other such things. If you look at the IRS web > site, you can locate information about this. At least in this case, you could > pay for some items with pre-tax money. > On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:25 PM, Mark BurningHawk Baxter wrote: > >> Are you kidding? they won't even pay for abortions for women who >> really need them, I doubt anything funded by *our* government will pay >> for a screen reader. >> >> >> Mark BurningHawk Baxter >> >> Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 >> MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com >> My home page: >> http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MacVisionaries" group. >> To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
Senators Harkin, Hagel, the late Kennedy and Feingold (perhaps others) did discuss an access technology provision but got slapped down by both parties for adding cost to the bill. Some might argue that the ADA restoration act of 2008 (signed by President Bush in August of last year without much fanfare) may sort of force vendors of tools to include accessibility. I don't know of any case law on this yet but Apple will shoot forward as MS will not buy a copy of JAWS or some other AT for other disabilities for everyone who asks for it. GNU/Linux is not "purchased" and isn't actually "owned" in any normal definition of these words so will probably be exempted from such regulations in general but would be covered at a school or job site. cdh On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > Why not have a provision in the Healthcare Bill, where this would > include covering the cost of a screenreader as a medical expense, much > in the manner that wheelchairs and certain types of hearing aids are > covered? Quite frankly, I don't think it would fly simply because > Congress would then come back and say that states should be given the > discretion as to what they will or will not cover in their rehab > budgets. Richie Gardenhire, Anchorage, Alaska. > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
Ah lets not mix issues here. I think there is a good argument to an insurance company paying some portion of a screen reader if they cover things like wheelchairs etc. At the risk of spinning this into an issue of politics, one is something you have no control over and the other you do to a larger extent. The point is we don't necessarily need the government paying for any of it. Now on the other hand, if you happen to have a flexible spending account as a benefit from your employer, certain adaptive technology can be paid for and reimbursed from your flexible spending account, which includes food for your dog guide and other such things. If you look at the IRS web site, you can locate information about this. At least in this case, you could pay for some items with pre-tax money. On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:25 PM, Mark BurningHawk Baxter wrote: > Are you kidding? they won't even pay for abortions for women who > really need them, I doubt anything funded by *our* government will pay > for a screen reader. > > > Mark BurningHawk Baxter > > Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 > MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com > My home page: > http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
Hi Lynn, Well-said. There are many blind individuals who wish to keep the status quo, and anybody who suggests otherwise is often criticized. I've been on enough lists to see that happen. It's a pleasure being on this list, as the intent of the list has really been maintained, to help each other access Mac systems. Best, Les -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
Re: Economics and the Mac
and we are supposed to have less access to a computer than the sighted because it would be something in the platform just for us? That makes no sense. If I ever need another Windows computer I hope that this group will buy me the software needed as I can't afford it. What are they thinking? They single us out as having special needs rather than integrating us into society which should be their goal. As I said I could write essays on this, so I'll stop. It's bed time anyway, and if I stay at this computer I'll keep thinking of more to say. What a sad situation this is. On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:54 PM, Lynn Schneider wrote: > I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never > forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn > the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame for > not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to blame. > As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. A few > years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic mistake of > expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of the box. > You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind people > basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful for all the > hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. Honestly, > it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for simply suggesting > that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers take for granted > without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, being on this list > and seeing all the other blind switchers out there, I feel at least a tiny > bit vindicated, as blind people are starting to see the benefits of universal > access. I really think it is the young blind people who are going to demand > universal access, at least I hope so. They are the ones who are going to > benefit most from being able to buy an iPhone or iPod Touch like their peers > and just start using the thing, and they are hopefully going to demand more > of that. With chips being so cheap now, there is absolutely no reason why > universal access cannot be built right into things. The best thing we can > all do is to spread the word far and wide about what Apple has been able to > accomplish with their products and make them an example of what can be. > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > >> I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at >> hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers >> universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why >> Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the >> technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it >> brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a >> mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without >> sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be >> forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their >> economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax >> dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what >> it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market >> is because they have contracted with some state agencies and >> government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. >> I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 >> to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest >> majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby >> boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for >> the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind >> kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them >> Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could >> probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of >> us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis >> increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, >> Anchorage, Alaska. >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: >> >> I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they >> have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why >> I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and >> secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but >> FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed >> market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating >> that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics >> ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if >> ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enoug
Re: Economics and the Mac
I purchased my first Apple computer about three months ago. I will never forget the feeling of complete surprise and joy at being able to just turn the iMac on and get it talking within minutes. Microsoft is not to blame for not having default Windows access out of the box, blind people are to blame. As Mark said, thinking outside the box can get you into hot water. A few years ago on a blindness-related list, I made the cataclysmic mistake of expressing my wish that some day, windows would be accessible out of the box. You would not believe the hate mail I received from tons of blind people basically saying that I wanted a free lunch, I was ungrateful for all the hard work and research of the screen reader companies, etc. etc. Honestly, it was totally shocking to me that I would get such ire for simply suggesting that we ought to have access to something our sighted peers take for granted without having to pay thousands of dollars extra. But, being on this list and seeing all the other blind switchers out there, I feel at least a tiny bit vindicated, as blind people are starting to see the benefits of universal access. I really think it is the young blind people who are going to demand universal access, at least I hope so. They are the ones who are going to benefit most from being able to buy an iPhone or iPod Touch like their peers and just start using the thing, and they are hopefully going to demand more of that. With chips being so cheap now, there is absolutely no reason why universal access cannot be built right into things. The best thing we can all do is to spread the word far and wide about what Apple has been able to accomplish with their products and make them an example of what can be. On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Richie Gardenhire wrote: > I have changed the subject line to more reflect on the discussion at > hand. If Apple can set aside resources to make their Mac computers > universally marketed across the board, there is no reason why > Microsoftshouldn't, (and they definitely have the resources and the > technical expertise throughout the company) to do so. And if it > brings the prices down, and Microsoft does, for example, develop a > mechanism by which Windows can be installed out of the box without > sighted assistance, companies such as Freedom Scientific would then be > forced to either go with the trend; otherwise, they would lose their > economic dolars; after all, isn't that what competition for tax > dollars and marketshare is all about? In my humble opinion, for what > it's worth, the only reason Freedom Scientific survives in the market > is because they have contracted with some state agencies and > government entities, and we bare the brunt of the expense ineirectly. > I paid less for my car than I have for braille displays costing $8000 > to $12,000 dollars at a time. In Alaska, for example, the biggest > majority of vision loss occurs in the elderly population and baby > boomers who are about to reach retirement age. We have no school for > the blind in Alaska; therefore, if parents want to send their blind > kids off to a residential school, they would have to send them > Stateside, which costs the state thousands of dollars which they could > probably find other revenues to use elsewhere.There are a handful of > us who are blind and visually-impaired Macusers, but that numberis > increasing, as the word about VoiceOver gets out. Richie Gardenhire, > Anchorage, Alaska. > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:21 PM, carlene knight wrote: > > I know that the companies take huge advantage of the fact that they > have a guaranteed nitch and can charge whatever they want. That's why > I will not upgrade my JAWS SMA. For one thing I don't need it and > secondly, I don't want to pay that kind of price for an upgrade, but > FS knows that they can get away with it because of a guaranteed > market. I'm not saying things could not change, but simply stating > that you can't get JAWS or a Braille display from a home electronics > ore software store, and I wouldn't expect to happen any time soon if > ever. In their eyes, why should They bother as they won't sell enough > of them to make it worth their while. There is a cell phone put out > by Capital Accessibility in Europe. I've seen one and it's no big > deal. The speech is great, but there is no camera, digital screen, or > anything that might ad a bit of a price to the phone. It's built like > a brick, but it is over $500 and though the speech is clear, it's very > robotic. Tell me that's not ridiculous? I don't know that agencies > are responsible for this one, but the phone is so tailored to our > needs that somebody will buy it. Not me. Granted, if more people > were learning braille and speech software as they were dealing with > macular degeneration, and there was a big enough demand for it, thing
Re: Economics and the Mac
Are you kidding? they won't even pay for abortions for women who really need them, I doubt anything funded by *our* government will pay for a screen reader. Mark BurningHawk Baxter Skype and Twitter: BurningHawk1969 MSN: burninghawk1...@hotmail.com My home page: http://MarkBurningHawk.net/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
