In message <SbydnbUbY6JVcIDSnZ2dnUVZ_o->, Alex Clayton
<> writes:
>On 1/23/2012 12:40 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:35:04 -0800, Alex Clayton<>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/23/2012 12:22 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>> In message<>, Alex Clayton
>>>> <> writes:
>>>>> On 1/23/2012 12:15 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>>> In message<>, R. C.
>>>>>> White<> writes:
>>>>>>> Hi, Ray.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We often call it "the button with no name". But if you hover the mouse
>>>>>>> over that button in the upper left corner - just left of the Home
>>>>>>> label - for a second or two, a text box with the name "Windows Live
>>>>>>> Mail" will appear. That's IT!
>>>>>> []
>>>>>> Clearly, another victory of form over function. If we sighted folk
>>>>>> mostly miss it, how are VI/VH supposed to find it, especially if that's
>>>>>> the only popup? Needs someone to bring a test case under the relevant
>>>>>> disability legislation ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Just what we need. Yet another lawyer to sue MS.
>>>>>
>>>> Granted, it doesn't make much sense when you put it like that. But since
>>>> this is a Windows 7 newsgroup, and W7 has the best (though not very
>>>> good) speech access for the visually impaired so far, please try turning
>>>> it (the speech access) on, and then turning your monitor off, for a
>>>> while, and using all your favourite software (including the one with the
>>>> blue button you describe).
>>>
>>> If you mean me, I don't need it so am not interested. If someone needs
>>> something I think they should just buy it. I rarely see anyone win when
>>> someone decides the lawyers need to get in on it. Except the Lawyers
>>> that is.
>>
>> Buy it? What should they buy? A new set of eyes?
>>
>
>Clearly, another victory of form over function. If we sighted folk
>mostly miss it, how are VI/VH supposed to find it, especially if that's
>the only popup? Needs someone to bring a test case under the relevant
>disability legislation ...
>
>This is what I was talking about. I am guessing there is some software
>to talk to the blind? If not suing MS is not going to help.
>I know they have been working on software to type for you as you talk.
>I don't "need" it. When I was back in school and was learning to type I
>was tempted to buy it. I did not as I knew if I did I would not put the
>effort into learning. Now if someone "needs" this, I don't want MS
>being forced to provide it free.
>
The blind mostly access via "screenreader" software - the name has
stuck, though it does more than just passively read the screen these
days. The best-known two variants are JAWS and Window-Eyes, though there
are others. There was something extremely basic provided as part of
Windows XP, and 7 has something better, though still not as good as the
commercial offerings (which, sadly, cost hundreds).
It's not the provision of the screenreader software that needs forcing -
Microsoft are slowly beginning to do that anyway, see above; it's a bit
more thought on the part of designers in general. Microsoft are far from
alone in this: web page designers are the worst.
In this case: screenreader software can only speak what is there as text
in some form. If the software has a button which has a meaningless
popup, that's all the screenreader can say.
So I'm not asking them to be forced to provide something for free, just
a little more thought on the part of software designers. With care at
the design stage, little or no extra cost is involved: it's a bit like
wheelchair access - if it is thought about at the design stage, it can
be designed into a building far more cheaply than providing it
afterwards to an existing building, in fact in the case of speech
access, I'd say the additional cost is less or zero (for wheelchair
access there is still some cost, but a bit of thought can ensure text is
there at hardly any extra cost).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Rather, she's like many educated people of her generation: modern enough to be
seduced by the sheer human interest of celebrity and popular culture, yet
traditional enough to feel bad about the seduction. - Robert Crampton on
Vanessa Feltz, Radio Times 15-21 January 2011
Similar Threads
