Re: Admin's Notes Re List Conduct, Please Read #adminnotice


On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 07:55 PM, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
The difference involves the temporal rate at which blind versus sighted users take in written verbal information. It i an irrefutable fact that visually scanning text with the naked eye is quicker than reading with speech at any rate. Just ask any reading comprehension or memory/retention specialist.
An area where, both from my academic background, and my clinical experience, I am more than familiar.

It's also irrelevant for the kinds of things I'm generally talking about, and even beyond.

Yes, it's slower and more arduous for blind individuals to deal with many text based things.  That is not, nor should ever be, considered an excuse not to do so.  And what you're offering is, indeed, an excuse.

No one is simply allowed to say, "It's too hard, so someone else should be expected to do the heavy lifting for me."  That happens, far too often, and I make no apology for saying so.

Many of the questions asked here and on several other blind-centric lists I frequent that repeat again and again and again are not, even vaguely, in the class where anything beyond minutes of review would be required to get an answer via a search.  I am sick to death of even the implication that I make my frustrations plain because people are asking questions that are of a complex nature or on features that are seldom used or require tricky interactions.

On a group like this one, I have seen things asked that NVDA help itself, in-program help, can answer in mere seconds if someone uses it.  And if someone states they are a neophyte, I answer the actual question and instruct on how to find it independently along with related information later.  These are not the people or instances that make me want to reach out and throttle anyone.  It's people who have been around, and often posting moderately frequently, asking simple questions that I absolutely know they have seen asked and answered innumerable times, because I'm familiar with their names for the duration of the time I've been participating or close to it.  That's not OK, not with me, and never will be.

My track record, in all respects, is abundantly clear and stands on its own.  I am happy to be taken to task for things I've actually said, or done, or both.  I'm even OK with being taken to task when what I have written could be construed in ways other than I'd intended, as that's entirely my fault.  But what I'm not OK with, and it's occurred on a number of occasions on this very topic, is having hypotheticals that have no connection to what I have said or have done, treated as though they're germane.

One of the biggest of those, and I hasten to add that I am not accusing you, specifically, on this one, is that I am somehow short-tempered and unsupportive of those new to NVDA when it's clear that this is the situation.  I have not been.  But I am also not willing to presume that every new member here is a neophyte unless they make that clear in some way.  The fact is that most new members are not, and never have been.  Most joining lists like this have years of screen reader and general computer use experience, and I will always  presume that anyone coming in here is way more likely to know the basics of a screen reader (not necessarily NVDA), how to use email, how to browse the web, and how to perform a web search.  This being 2021, and my having senior citizen clients who can handle the basics of all of those things (both with and without vision), will keep me convinced that this is not an unreasonable presumption.  People joining tech groups are very, very seldom "blank slates."  And many egregious offenders with "simple questions" are those I know are absolutely not inexperienced, and they should know better.

Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 20H2, Build 19042  

The depths of denial one can be pushed to by outside forces of disapproval can make you not even recognize yourself to yourself.

       ~ Brian Vogel


Join to automatically receive all group messages.