toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Yeah that's true, more like a screen reader alternative for
people who don't want to use anything but what it gives you. I
know it had the file system manager, and I think it had an email
program, but I don't think it had a browser alternative. It's been
a few years, and I didn't really get much into it except for the
games. I know most people I knew who had it also had VV or Jaws or
they wouldn't have been able to use Skype.
On 7/19/2022 5:08 AM, Rui Fontes wrote:
Yah, but remember that DosVox it was not a screen reader...
In some versions it have a very basic screen reader, but it was
Às 02:57 de 19/07/2022, Shawn via
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
And everybody have forgoten a screen reader developed in
Brasil, named Virtual Vision...
Às 00:28 de 19/07/2022, Gene
the 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
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: