Re: firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Brian's Mail list account

Well everyone can raise a bug report on bugzilla but I found it hard to explain things in such a way that their programmers understood, and hence do not do it very often. What is needed is somebody in Mozilla here I think.

Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Canazzi" <aa2vm@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Hi Group,

Boy,this is stunning. I have had no problems of any significance with
Firefox 57. Yet I have no doubt that a good number of people are having
issues. I wonder if system information comparison would help at all.
That is to say: if everyone shared their system information with Mozilla
or some other tech savvy group to see just what factors might be
involved in such widely varying results.

On 11/16/2017 6:41 PM, Gene wrote:
I wonder why people get such different results? Is there anyone on
the list who tests for Mozilla who might report this? Other than
report it, I'm not sure how users might collect information to give a
possible explanation to the developers.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Christopher-Mark Gilland <mailto:clgilland07@...>
*Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:13 PM
*To:* <>
*Subject:* Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Tried, and no luck.
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
(980) 500-9575

----- Original Message -----
*From:* Gene <mailto:gsasner@...>
*To:* <>
*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.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Christopher-Mark Gilland <mailto:clgilland07@...>
*Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:55 PM
*To:* <>
*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
(980) 500-9575

----- Original Message -----
*From:* Gene <mailto:gsasner@...>
*To:* <>
*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.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Gene <mailto:gsasner@...>
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:08 AM
*To:* <>
*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.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:05 AM
*To:* <>
*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!


bglists@... <mailto:bglists@...>
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@... <mailto:briang1@...>,
putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene" <gsasner@... <mailto:gsasner@...>>
To: < <>>
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
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
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.

----- Original Message -----

From: brian
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:07 PM
To: <>
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
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
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

How often do sighted people complain about things like road
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.

----- Original Message -----

From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
To: <>
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
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
can actually hear that things are going on. for example I've
that screenreaders sometimes do not figure out the page has
loaded, but
navigational sounds does and hence allows me to re focus the
Also I would not know if a download had completed if the
download pane
hidden without a sound.
Some links click but clickables do not so sometimes you can
figure out
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

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.

bglists@... <mailto:bglists@...>
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@... <mailto:briang1@...>,
putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@...
To: < <>>
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
> 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
> 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
> I have left active the unwanted software protection but I
heard from
> 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
> while I do use dolphin stuff myself for things their web
stuff is only
> 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
> 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.

They Ask Me If I'm Happy; I say Yes.
They ask: "How Happy are You?"
I Say: "I'm as happy as a stow away chimpanzee on a banana boat!"

Join to automatically receive all group messages.