Re: firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Christopher-Mark Gilland <clgilland07@...>
 


Tried, and no luck.
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

I don't know whether you are using the 64 or 32 bit version but if you were to use the 32 bit version or the 32 bit version portable, I'm not sure if there is even a 64 bit version portable, you could probably get it to work, though we'll have to see if you try it. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Even that! isn't working here. The only screen reader I've kind of gotten to work with it was Narrator, and even then, it wasn't pretty.
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Regarding working with the new version of Firefox in Windows 7, I'm not interested in evaluating the new version enough to test it on a lot of web pages and in a lot of different tasks such as playing audio. It works here on my Windows 7 machine.  the main problem I found is that, when a page loads, I have to tab when the page should be loaded in order to have whatever needs to happen for the browser or screen-reader or whatever the case, to see anything on the page.  If I tab and wait a number of seconds after the page appears to have loaded, it then works with the screen-reader.  Before that, it appears blank, except that the title bar shows the page that is, or that is being loaded after the passage of a little time since I issue the open command.  I don't know what would happen if I tabbed earlier or much earlier, but I've been waiting until I hear NVDA announce the title bar announcing the title of the new page.  Others may want to experiment with shorter intervals.
 
Gene 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

I was clarifying my position because I wasn't sure it was stated as clearly as it should have been or if it was being understood as well as it should have been.  And I think despite you evidently disagreeing, that the underlying poingt is worth considering.  Excessive dependence on optional features may lead to problems in certain contexts.  If its your computer, you can set it up as you wish.  If it's a friends computer or a work computer, or a library computer, you may not be able to and excessive dependence can make it harder to do things in various contexts than otherwise.
 
Gene. 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Since you are determined to have an argument about this, would you like a
five minute argument or a longer one we have arguments on offer this week!

Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene" <gsasner@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


There are some sounds that are important because you can't get information
efficiently about something such as a USB connection in other ways.  I may
not have made it as clear as I should have in my first message, but I'm
talking specifically about sounds in contexts such as browser sounds, where
the information can be efficiently gotten in other ways.  There are
advantages and disadvantages in various browsers but making whether sounds
are available in a browser be a very important factor in determining whether
to use that browser is, in my opinion, emphasizing sounds that are optional
to a far more central position than they should be.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: brian
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:07 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


            I think that the reason that some blind people like sounds is it
gives us a indacation of what's going on just like the sighted can see at
glance.  It's like windows sounds.  We have the windows music to let us know
that our computer is on.  We have other windows sounds like the sound we
hear when we plug a thumbdrive in or unplug it.  If we did not hear this
sound we would think that there is a problem but if there was no sound then
how would we know that there was a problem.  Sounds may not be necessary but
they can really help us greatly to know what is happening.  I don't have my
sounds on in my webie brouser but I would not fault somone if they did.  I
do think that it's important to a sound for down loads because if there is a
problem with your internet connection then you would know.  Again the
sighted can just look but we can't.  Alot of people don't have good internet
and it can and does loose connection quite frequently.

Brian Sackrider




On 11/14/2017 9:04 AM, Gene wrote:

  I want to make my position clear and discuss another aspect of the current
situation in this rather long message.

  If people want to use sounds, there is nothing wrong with that but you
don't need them and my position is that being so dependent on them that you
make that a major determining factor on what browser to use is being too
dependent.  That's my position.  I didn't say they are worthless nor that
people shouldn't use them.  I'm talking about being too dependent on one
aspect of a program when that aspect isn't central to the program and when
there may be better programs in general that don't have this specific
characteristic.
  I'm saying that if someone considers sounds in browsers to be so important
that that is a major factor in deciding what browser to use, I consider that
to be too dependent.  There are other efficient ways to tell things when
using a browser.  If a page hasn't loaded, you can't move around.  Tabbing
or down arrowing once or twice will tell you.  I'm not saying, as you said,
that they are pointless.  I'm saying that almost anything sounds do, can be
either efficiently inferred or checked by other methods and that changing
from one browser to another based either only or largely on sounds, is
making this one characteristic of a browser too important.

  I don't want my position to be misunderstood.  If people want to use
sounds, then that's fine;  I'm saying that dependence on them to an
excessive degree is not desirable if it leads to decisions on what programs
to use in a certain class when trying to decide between program a and b that
do roughly the same thing.  Browsers have various advantages and
disadvantages and sound is only one aspect of a program.
  Also, the changes being made in firefox, according to a review I've read,
make it even faster than Chrome.  It isn't much faster, at least now, and I
don't think it matters but if people read the article about these changes
posted last week from Marco's Accessibility blog, these changes may result
in screen-readers being far more capable to work on complex pages that have
embedded programs or where the pages are far more interactive than
traditional web pages, and that increasing numbers of web pages are, and
will be more complex over time.  Therefore, I find the attitude of blaming
Mozilla for what it says it intends to be only a temporary loss of
performance for blind users, and writing as though they are going to
permanently use a different browser without even seeing the results of the
work being done is disturbing.  At the moment, Chrome may be better than
Firefoxs in its latest version because of the changes.  But blind people may
be better served by what Mozilla is doing after the initial inconvenience.

  How often do sighted people complain about things like road construction
and repair, but would they never use the road again because of the temporary
inconvenience?  They may use a different road during the repairs and the
road may even be closed at times, but they return to it when it is in good
order again.

  Gene
  ----- Original Message -----

  From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
  To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
  Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  Well the beta I tried simply refused to say anything but unknown on any
  page, though most of the menus still worked.

  I'm not inclined to update since I use the sound, particularly the one
when
  a page has fully loaded and the one that tells me a link has in fact
  activated and of course download complete


  I have seen elsewhere where people think these sounds are pointless. I
  dispute this as everyone is different and I really only use browsers where
I
  can actually hear that things are going on. for example I've always
noticed
  that screenreaders sometimes do not figure out the page has loaded, but
  navigational sounds does and hence allows me to re focus the screenreader.
   Also I would not know if a download had completed if the download pane
was
  hidden without a sound.
   Some links click but clickables do not so sometimes you can figure out
what
  is which sort of link on a page this way. In a way it would be even better
  if button link and clickable had different sounds to save one getting
  confused.

  I think the list of things some of us want in a browser is obviously going
  to be different to what the sighted want, so one will really need somebody
  at Mozilla etc to write blind specific add ons for a browser.
   Its far easier when trying to teach somebody how to use a browser to be
  able to say, if you do not hear x then its not worked.
   Brian

  bglists@...
  Sent via blueyonder.
  Please address personal email to:-
  briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
  in the display name field.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@...>
  To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
  Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 6:42 PM
  Subject: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  > Hi.
  >
  > Well While brousing firefox ftp today I decided to try firefox 57 as it
  > was on releases today.
  >
  > What exactly was the fuss?
  >
  > Firefox interface loads fast, no lag, but I havn't tried big sites maybe
a
  > couple seconds for audiogames forum.
  >
  > Addons, noscript, aparently this will not work till actual release of
  > firefox.
  >
  > Navigational sounds.
  >
  > I am trying to find a replacement, the author of this said that because
  > the new interface doesn't allow for registry access one can't get the
list
  > of events to do things with.
  >
  > I tried 3 of them so far.
  >
  > Notification sound, noise and download sound.
  >
  > Download sound has no options or rather any way I can configure it to
  > suit.
  >
  > Noise has options but there are no default events set and I tried to add
  > what I wanted and define its sounds but I can't set values and going to
  > its website found that while there is a web version all features are
  > basically not there.
  >
  > Notification sound is another, but its got no options screen.
  >
  > Something like noise would be fine if it had an default event list which
  > just used the windows schemes directly to the files etc.
  >
  > I only need web navigation start and end, and download complete as a
  > start.
  >
  > If there was a way I could easily add events, or something that would be
  > good but I'd like a list for beginners I could import.
  >
  > Over those though, I did notice and turn on the extra privacy
protection,
  > I have left active the unwanted software protection but I heard from
some
  > that this can cause problems.
  >
  > I also read the article about accessibility services and how they can be
  > misused.
  >
  > It does say if you have a compatible jaws or nvda active on your system
  > that you should leave this active.
  >
  > This is interesting, dolphin stuff is not on this list it makes me
wander,
  > while I do use dolphin stuff myself for things their web stuff is only
for
  > ie and ie 6-8 mainly.
  >
  > Still its an observation only.
  >
  > I must say off the bat what I really like about firefox are the easy
  > option layouts, I just wish there was a way to extend them to well have
  > extras for addons rather than mucking about with the manager.
  >
  > I do like the fact you can have arrow navigation on.
  >
  > I did get noscript revived but when I hit a site with scripts on it
never
  > actually notified me at all.
  >
  > I guess I have to fiddle with it, I do hope thatnoscript does go out and
  > get released.
  >
  > Today is the 14th in nz and tomorrow it will be 14th in us and so, I am
  > probably going to have to keep firefox 57 loaded though I am tempted to
  > drop back to 56.02 for now and get my sounds back.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >









Join nvda@nvda.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.