toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Hi Ken, I think you misunderstood something. The Brazilian screen
reader package I was talking about is called Dosvox,
D...O...S...V as in victor...O...X, and it's for Windows. It's
called Dosvox, but really has nothing to do with Dos. BTW there is
an implementation of Dosvox in Spanish called MexVox.
There is also Linvox, the original Dosvox in Portuguese, but for
On 7/20/2022 5:32 AM, Ken Perry wrote:
You can still play the moon landing game
if you run MsDos on the web. There is actually web sites that
run MsDos with all the old .bas games.
Yeah, I couldn't get that because you have to have a
Brazilian bank account in a certain bank to get it. I thought
it would be cool to try it. I did have DosVox though for a
while and played around with it some years ago. There were
some cool games, I especially liked the one where you have to
try to land on the moon. But I had to use a different voice,
the native voice was incomprehensible to me as it was just
made up of a bunch of syllables in wav files. Sounded like an
alien robot. For native speakers it wasn't a problem, but for
me I hated it. Luckily you could use a Sapi voice with it. It
was basically a screen reader for people who didn't want to
have to learn windows. It had loads of parts like a word
processor, dictionaries, a telnet type client, and a file
manager and I forget what else. Lots of people say it makes
its users lazy for that reason, and they don't bother learning
how to do things with windows and other programs.
On 7/18/2022 6:35 PM, Rui Fontes wrote:
And everybody have forgoten a screen reader developed in
Brasil, named Virtual Vision...
Às 00:28 de 19/07/2022, Gene escreveu:
article is interesting and it has good information about
JAWS and NVDA. But it has problems. It should have said
something about Window-eyes because a lot of people used
it and it was a good screen-reader. It helped in
development of screen-reader innovations in ways that
should have been noted.
But a serious problem in the article is that it gives the
reader the impression that there shouldn't need to be
independently developed screen-readers if developers of
software built accessibility into them. This is erroneous
for two reasons.
First, yes, accessibility should be built into programs
and operating systems but we have been better served by
screen-readers being developed outside of operating system
programmers. We are much better off having choices when
it comes to Windows screen-readers. It is a constantly
stated truism that some screen-readers work better with
some programs than others. If Microsoft had developed a
good screen-reader from the outset, we would probably only
have one screen-reader and even if we would benefit from
having more, we wouldn't.
The article doesn't discuss this at all and the author is
evidently completely unaware of the arguments about which
is better, one screen-reader developed by the developers
of an operating system or what exists regarding Windows.
I think we are much better off as things are.
On 7/14/2022 10:06 PM, Laurie Mehta
via groups.io wrote: