Re: Adobe Acrobat vs. QRead


JM Casey <crystallogic@...>
 

That's a screen-reader command, but yes, that should work more nicely.

-----Original Message-----
From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ann Byrne
Sent: September 13, 2018 5:42 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] Adobe Acrobat vs. QRead

Insert+ctrl+f works in Adobe.
At 01:54 PM 9/13/2018, you wrote:
The Adobe Acrobat find feature is weird and doesn't quite work nicely
with screen-readers in my experience.

You should have both Adobe and qRead on your system if you want, imo.
I like qRead mostly because it is fast as hell. If you set Adobe to
load the entire document, which is wise if you really want proper
functionality to work, but then try to open a really large file, you've
no doubt noticed how irritatingly long it takes to process.
qRead can do this in just a few seconds. So I like how small and snappy
it is by comparison.

However, sometimes you will just need the Adobe product instead.
qRead doesn't always seem to show document formatting properly. You
can't print from it if I remember right, and anyway, if formatting is
wanky, you wouldn't want to. You can't fill out forms. Etc, etc.



-----Original Message-----
From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike
Sedmak
Sent: September 13, 2018 12:19 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] Adobe Acrobat vs. QRead

I find that search works in qread but have trouble searching for text
in acrobat reader.

On 9/13/18, kelby carlson <kelbycarlson@...> wrote:
I know that QRead is specifically designed for the blind, but are
there any advantages it has in reading PDFs that make it
significantly better than Adobe Acrobat with NVDA?






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