My real question is whether NVDA leads to noticeably less productivity in employment based on user experience of those who use it at work. I don't think it does for me, but I haven't used JAWS in a long time, so I'm not sure.

That skim reading feature doesn't look quite as advanced as the one JAWS has; no text rules etc.

We are getting off topic, but most IT departments don’t have the resources to look through NVDA/Open source software and determine if it’s secure enough. Then again, JAWS also has its problems getting into secured environments.

 

 

Andy Borka

Accessibility engineer

 

From: Antony Stone
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 7:49 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] NVDA in Emploandenp

 

Anyone who suggests that open source software shouldn't be allowed in a secure

environment doesn't understand the concept of peer review and "we have nothing

to hide - look at our software and judge for yourself (I don't mean the

average user, I mean security experts) whether it's secure or not".

 

Proprietary software can hide all sorts of bugs and backdoors the vendor wants

to behind the cloak of secrecy.  That's not the same as security.

 

Antony.

 

On Sunday 25 August 2019 at 13:38:39, kelby carlson wrote:

 

> Hi, everyone,

>

> I hope this isn't too off-topic. I recently heard an argument that NVDA is

> bad for blind prospect's in employment because it is the "dumbed down"

> solution. The person arguing this elaborated, saying that NVDA is not

> customizable/flexible enough (too chatty"), that it was not able to be

> scripted as easily, it didn't work well with as much proprietary software,

> and that it wouldn't be allowed on secure environments due to being open

> source.

>

> So my question is this: how many people here use NVDA for work, and is

> there a notable dilerence in level of usability with JAWS?

>

> Also, does NVDA have a skim reading feature like JAWS?

 

--

If you can smile when all about you things are going wrong, you must have

someone in mind to take the blame.

 

                                                   Please reply to the list;

                                                         please *don't* CC me.