Date   

Re: quick navigation keys do not work

 

The problem is now solved! It all had to do with the fact that I opted into the Sophos Home beta for version 1.28 of their software. I'm currently running 1.27 with no issues. However, that beta is seriously bad news for those of us who use screen readers. I need to tell them this information and see if it can't be fixed. I just wish I had thought of this sooner.





On 11/16/2017 8:02 PM, Gene wrote:
Your description of the problem doesn't match the unregistered dll files problem, at least not so far.  I've never seen such messages as not supported in the document described when this problem occurs nor any sort of irratic movement through the document.  I don't know why the commands work in Thunderbird nor what the unregistered dll files might cause to happen in Thunderbird. 
 
I'm not sure what to advise.  What I'll suggest is that you put the quarantened items back, if you can, and see if things work properly.  If they don't, you can try the procedure for registering dll files.  Then if things are working properly, you can scan with a good online scanner and something like malware bytes and see if the same files are flagged.  
 
Gene 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] quick navigation keys do not work

Interesting things is that I can navigate fine within email messages in Thunderbird. H takes me to all headings.





On 11/16/2017 7:24 PM, Gene wrote:
You can try to register the items but the items may no longer be there.  if they were considered threats, they may have been quaranteened.  You may have to restore them from quaranteen and then register them again.  But then there is the question of whether these are false positives or whether they have been infected.  I would suggest scanning with something else after you restore the files, if that is necessary.  A good online scanner might help you determine if Sofos (spelling) showed false positives or not. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:17 PM
Subject: [nvda] quick navigation keys do not work

This is how it goes, the best I understand it.


I ran a scan today, using Sophos Home. It removed a couple of things that it said were a threat. After this, I can no longer reliably use quick navigation keys to do much of anything, either in Chrome or Firefox. This is with the latest versions of both of these browsers installed. This occurs even with Firefox Nightly.


I can press h for headings, and it might take me to an edit field, or say that this isn't supported in the document, or take me to a button. How would I register again the dll's that pertain to web accessibility? This is the only thing I can think of that would be the issue in both browsers. Would a reinstall of NVDA fix this issue?


Re: firefox what was the fuss exactly?

 

Hmmph, you would have to probably try 32 bit, the thing is if you don't need java or flash or some extra stuff there is no reason to stay 32 bit, and since I am on a 64 bit system I go 64 bit not because its faster but because I can and there isn't anything stopping me doing so especially since I have the ability to have a 64 bit os.

It does mean that several older programs don't run right at all, but if push comes to shove I have a really old 32 bit duelcore system which has a lot of issues with xp which I can run these programs on and which I may just do in the future.

On 17/11/2017 12:41 p.m., Gene wrote:
I wonder why people get such different results? Is there anyone on the list who tests for Mozilla who might report this? Other than report it, I'm not sure how users might collect information to give a possible explanation to the developers.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: Christopher-Mark Gilland
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:13 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Tried, and no luck.
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries

http://www.gshministry.org
(980) 500-9575
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


I don't know whether you are using the 64 or 32 bit version but if you were to use the 32 bit version or the 32 bit version portable, I'm not sure if there is even a 64 bit version portable, you could probably get it to work, though we'll have to see if you try it.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: Christopher-Mark Gilland
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:55 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Even that! isn't working here. The only screen reader I've kind of gotten to work with it was Narrator, and even then, it wasn't pretty.
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries

http://www.gshministry.org
(980) 500-9575
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Regarding working with the new version of Firefox in Windows 7, I'm not interested in evaluating the new version enough to test it on a lot of web pages and in a lot of different tasks such as playing audio. It works here on my Windows 7 machine. the main problem I found is that, when a page loads, I have to tab when the page should be loaded in order to have whatever needs to happen for the browser or screen-reader or whatever the case, to see anything on the page. If I tab and wait a number of seconds after the page appears to have loaded, it then works with the screen-reader. Before that, it appears blank, except that the title bar shows the page that is, or that is being loaded after the passage of a little time since I issue the open command. I don't know what would happen if I tabbed earlier or much earlier, but I've been waiting until I hear NVDA announce the title bar announcing the title of the new page. Others may want to experiment with shorter intervals.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: Gene
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:08 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


I was clarifying my position because I wasn't sure it was stated as clearly as it should have been or if it was being understood as well as it should have been. And I think despite you evidently disagreeing, that the underlying poingt is worth considering. Excessive dependence on optional features may lead to problems in certain contexts. If its your computer, you can set it up as you wish. If it's a friends computer or a work computer, or a library computer, you may not be able to and excessive dependence can make it harder to do things in various contexts than otherwise.

Gene.
----- Original Message -----

From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:05 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Since you are determined to have an argument about this, would you like a
five minute argument or a longer one we have arguments on offer this week!

Brian

bglists@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene" <gsasner@ripco.com>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


There are some sounds that are important because you can't get information
efficiently about something such as a USB connection in other ways. I may
not have made it as clear as I should have in my first message, but I'm
talking specifically about sounds in contexts such as browser sounds, where
the information can be efficiently gotten in other ways. There are
advantages and disadvantages in various browsers but making whether sounds
are available in a browser be a very important factor in determining whether
to use that browser is, in my opinion, emphasizing sounds that are optional
to a far more central position than they should be.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: brian
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:07 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


I think that the reason that some blind people like sounds is it
gives us a indacation of what's going on just like the sighted can see at
glance. It's like windows sounds. We have the windows music to let us know
that our computer is on. We have other windows sounds like the sound we
hear when we plug a thumbdrive in or unplug it. If we did not hear this
sound we would think that there is a problem but if there was no sound then
how would we know that there was a problem. Sounds may not be necessary but
they can really help us greatly to know what is happening. I don't have my
sounds on in my webie brouser but I would not fault somone if they did. I
do think that it's important to a sound for down loads because if there is a
problem with your internet connection then you would know. Again the
sighted can just look but we can't. Alot of people don't have good internet
and it can and does loose connection quite frequently.

Brian Sackrider




On 11/14/2017 9:04 AM, Gene wrote:

I want to make my position clear and discuss another aspect of the current
situation in this rather long message.

If people want to use sounds, there is nothing wrong with that but you
don't need them and my position is that being so dependent on them that you
make that a major determining factor on what browser to use is being too
dependent. That's my position. I didn't say they are worthless nor that
people shouldn't use them. I'm talking about being too dependent on one
aspect of a program when that aspect isn't central to the program and when
there may be better programs in general that don't have this specific
characteristic.
I'm saying that if someone considers sounds in browsers to be so important
that that is a major factor in deciding what browser to use, I consider that
to be too dependent. There are other efficient ways to tell things when
using a browser. If a page hasn't loaded, you can't move around. Tabbing
or down arrowing once or twice will tell you. I'm not saying, as you said,
that they are pointless. I'm saying that almost anything sounds do, can be
either efficiently inferred or checked by other methods and that changing
from one browser to another based either only or largely on sounds, is
making this one characteristic of a browser too important.

I don't want my position to be misunderstood. If people want to use
sounds, then that's fine; I'm saying that dependence on them to an
excessive degree is not desirable if it leads to decisions on what programs
to use in a certain class when trying to decide between program a and b that
do roughly the same thing. Browsers have various advantages and
disadvantages and sound is only one aspect of a program.
Also, the changes being made in firefox, according to a review I've read,
make it even faster than Chrome. It isn't much faster, at least now, and I
don't think it matters but if people read the article about these changes
posted last week from Marco's Accessibility blog, these changes may result
in screen-readers being far more capable to work on complex pages that have
embedded programs or where the pages are far more interactive than
traditional web pages, and that increasing numbers of web pages are, and
will be more complex over time. Therefore, I find the attitude of blaming
Mozilla for what it says it intends to be only a temporary loss of
performance for blind users, and writing as though they are going to
permanently use a different browser without even seeing the results of the
work being done is disturbing. At the moment, Chrome may be better than
Firefoxs in its latest version because of the changes. But blind people may
be better served by what Mozilla is doing after the initial inconvenience.

How often do sighted people complain about things like road construction
and repair, but would they never use the road again because of the temporary
inconvenience? They may use a different road during the repairs and the
road may even be closed at times, but they return to it when it is in good
order again.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Well the beta I tried simply refused to say anything but unknown on any
page, though most of the menus still worked.

I'm not inclined to update since I use the sound, particularly the one
when
a page has fully loaded and the one that tells me a link has in fact
activated and of course download complete


I have seen elsewhere where people think these sounds are pointless. I
dispute this as everyone is different and I really only use browsers where
I
can actually hear that things are going on. for example I've always
noticed
that screenreaders sometimes do not figure out the page has loaded, but
navigational sounds does and hence allows me to re focus the screenreader.
Also I would not know if a download had completed if the download pane
was
hidden without a sound.
Some links click but clickables do not so sometimes you can figure out
what
is which sort of link on a page this way. In a way it would be even better
if button link and clickable had different sounds to save one getting
confused.

I think the list of things some of us want in a browser is obviously going
to be different to what the sighted want, so one will really need somebody
at Mozilla etc to write blind specific add ons for a browser.
Its far easier when trying to teach somebody how to use a browser to be
able to say, if you do not hear x then its not worked.
Brian

bglists@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@gmail.com>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 6:42 PM
Subject: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


> Hi.
>
> Well While brousing firefox ftp today I decided to try firefox 57 as it
> was on releases today.
>
> What exactly was the fuss?
>
> Firefox interface loads fast, no lag, but I havn't tried big sites maybe
a
> couple seconds for audiogames forum.
>
> Addons, noscript, aparently this will not work till actual release of
> firefox.
>
> Navigational sounds.
>
> I am trying to find a replacement, the author of this said that because
> the new interface doesn't allow for registry access one can't get the
list
> of events to do things with.
>
> I tried 3 of them so far.
>
> Notification sound, noise and download sound.
>
> Download sound has no options or rather any way I can configure it to
> suit.
>
> Noise has options but there are no default events set and I tried to add
> what I wanted and define its sounds but I can't set values and going to
> its website found that while there is a web version all features are
> basically not there.
>
> Notification sound is another, but its got no options screen.
>
> Something like noise would be fine if it had an default event list which
> just used the windows schemes directly to the files etc.
>
> I only need web navigation start and end, and download complete as a
> start.
>
> If there was a way I could easily add events, or something that would be
> good but I'd like a list for beginners I could import.
>
> Over those though, I did notice and turn on the extra privacy
protection,
> I have left active the unwanted software protection but I heard from
some
> that this can cause problems.
>
> I also read the article about accessibility services and how they can be
> misused.
>
> It does say if you have a compatible jaws or nvda active on your system
> that you should leave this active.
>
> This is interesting, dolphin stuff is not on this list it makes me
wander,
> while I do use dolphin stuff myself for things their web stuff is only
for
> ie and ie 6-8 mainly.
>
> Still its an observation only.
>
> I must say off the bat what I really like about firefox are the easy
> option layouts, I just wish there was a way to extend them to well have
> extras for addons rather than mucking about with the manager.
>
> I do like the fact you can have arrow navigation on.
>
> I did get noscript revived but when I hit a site with scripts on it
never
> actually notified me at all.
>
> I guess I have to fiddle with it, I do hope thatnoscript does go out and
> get released.
>
> Today is the 14th in nz and tomorrow it will be 14th in us and so, I am
> probably going to have to keep firefox 57 loaded though I am tempted to
> drop back to 56.02 for now and get my sounds back.
>
>
>
>
>











Re: windows 10 start menu

slery <slerythema@...>
 

Yes, this is my problem. Ironically, it says I am still on 2703.
Will give this a try now that I know it is not a NVDA issue.
Cindy

On November 16, 2017 3:39:55 PM "Chris Mullins" <cjmullins29@...> wrote:

Apparently an issue since 1709 initially released.  Article below suggests some fixes:

https://www.downloadsource.net/how-to-fix-start-menu-after-updating-to-windows-10-fall-creators-1709/n/10598/

 

Cheers

Chris

 

From: nvda@nvda.groups.io [mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io] On Behalf Of slery
Sent: 16 November 2017 16:38
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] windows 10 start menu

 

I had a menu before the update.
I restarted and still no joy.
Cindy

On November 16, 2017 11:06:30 AM "Chris Mullins" <cjmullins29@...> wrote:

What do you have set in Windows Settings, Personalisation, Start section?

 

Cheers

Chris

From: nvda@nvda.groups.io [mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io] On Behalf Of slery
Sent: 16 November 2017 15:20
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] windows 10 start menu

 

There is no menu. All it says is Cortana search. No recent apps, no apps of any kind, no tiles, no power options.

Cindy

On November 16, 2017 9:09:37 AM "Dr. arvind singh brar" <arvindsinghbrar@...> wrote:

Hi cindy,

 

Try pressing the windows key a second time or just press tab till you get to search

This message is transmitted on 100% recycled electrons.


On 16 Nov 2017, at 11.43, slery <slerythema@...> wrote:

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (slerythema@...) Add cleanup rule | More info


My computer just updated today and restarted on its own (I was in another room and heard it reboot and applying updates).

Now, I cannot use the start menu. It says Cortana search but doesn't respond to anything I type in it.

Please help.

Cindy




Re: nvda and youtube with google chrome

Robert Mendoza
 

Hi Josh, here are the list of useful key commands in playing youtube. 
https://www.hongkiat.com/blog/useful-youtube-keyboard-shortcuts-to-know/

Robert Mendoza
On 11/17/2017 8:03 AM, Rosemarie Chavarria wrote:

I forgot how to do it. I'ts been awhile since I turned up the volume in youtube.

 

 

 

From: nvda@nvda.groups.io [mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io] On Behalf Of Josh Kennedy
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:20 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: [nvda] nvda and youtube with google chrome

 

hi

In google chrome with the latest NVDA, when you are watching a youtube video, how do you turn up and down the youtube video volume without affecting other applications volumes on the system in windows10?

 

Josh

 

-- 
sent with mozilla thunderbird


Re: firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Adriani Botez
 

For me works everything fine with NVDA 2017.3, windows 10 and FF 57. 
It depemds on which processors you have. Mine is a kabylake 2.7 ghz and 4 cores.

Best
Adriani


Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 17.11.2017 um 00:41 schrieb Gene <gsasner@...>:

I wonder why people get such different results?  Is there anyone on the list who tests for Mozilla who might report this?  Other than report it, I'm not sure how users might collect information to give a possible explanation to the developers.
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Tried, and no luck.
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

I don't know whether you are using the 64 or 32 bit version but if you were to use the 32 bit version or the 32 bit version portable, I'm not sure if there is even a 64 bit version portable, you could probably get it to work, though we'll have to see if you try it. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Even that! isn't working here. The only screen reader I've kind of gotten to work with it was Narrator, and even then, it wasn't pretty.
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Regarding working with the new version of Firefox in Windows 7, I'm not interested in evaluating the new version enough to test it on a lot of web pages and in a lot of different tasks such as playing audio. It works here on my Windows 7 machine.  the main problem I found is that, when a page loads, I have to tab when the page should be loaded in order to have whatever needs to happen for the browser or screen-reader or whatever the case, to see anything on the page.  If I tab and wait a number of seconds after the page appears to have loaded, it then works with the screen-reader.  Before that, it appears blank, except that the title bar shows the page that is, or that is being loaded after the passage of a little time since I issue the open command.  I don't know what would happen if I tabbed earlier or much earlier, but I've been waiting until I hear NVDA announce the title bar announcing the title of the new page.  Others may want to experiment with shorter intervals.
 
Gene 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

I was clarifying my position because I wasn't sure it was stated as clearly as it should have been or if it was being understood as well as it should have been.  And I think despite you evidently disagreeing, that the underlying poingt is worth considering.  Excessive dependence on optional features may lead to problems in certain contexts.  If its your computer, you can set it up as you wish.  If it's a friends computer or a work computer, or a library computer, you may not be able to and excessive dependence can make it harder to do things in various contexts than otherwise.
 
Gene. 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Since you are determined to have an argument about this, would you like a
five minute argument or a longer one we have arguments on offer this week!

Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene" <gsasner@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


There are some sounds that are important because you can't get information
efficiently about something such as a USB connection in other ways.  I may
not have made it as clear as I should have in my first message, but I'm
talking specifically about sounds in contexts such as browser sounds, where
the information can be efficiently gotten in other ways.  There are
advantages and disadvantages in various browsers but making whether sounds
are available in a browser be a very important factor in determining whether
to use that browser is, in my opinion, emphasizing sounds that are optional
to a far more central position than they should be.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: brian
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:07 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


            I think that the reason that some blind people like sounds is it
gives us a indacation of what's going on just like the sighted can see at
glance.  It's like windows sounds.  We have the windows music to let us know
that our computer is on.  We have other windows sounds like the sound we
hear when we plug a thumbdrive in or unplug it.  If we did not hear this
sound we would think that there is a problem but if there was no sound then
how would we know that there was a problem.  Sounds may not be necessary but
they can really help us greatly to know what is happening.  I don't have my
sounds on in my webie brouser but I would not fault somone if they did.  I
do think that it's important to a sound for down loads because if there is a
problem with your internet connection then you would know.  Again the
sighted can just look but we can't.  Alot of people don't have good internet
and it can and does loose connection quite frequently.

Brian Sackrider




On 11/14/2017 9:04 AM, Gene wrote:

  I want to make my position clear and discuss another aspect of the current
situation in this rather long message.

  If people want to use sounds, there is nothing wrong with that but you
don't need them and my position is that being so dependent on them that you
make that a major determining factor on what browser to use is being too
dependent.  That's my position.  I didn't say they are worthless nor that
people shouldn't use them.  I'm talking about being too dependent on one
aspect of a program when that aspect isn't central to the program and when
there may be better programs in general that don't have this specific
characteristic.
  I'm saying that if someone considers sounds in browsers to be so important
that that is a major factor in deciding what browser to use, I consider that
to be too dependent.  There are other efficient ways to tell things when
using a browser.  If a page hasn't loaded, you can't move around.  Tabbing
or down arrowing once or twice will tell you.  I'm not saying, as you said,
that they are pointless.  I'm saying that almost anything sounds do, can be
either efficiently inferred or checked by other methods and that changing
from one browser to another based either only or largely on sounds, is
making this one characteristic of a browser too important.

  I don't want my position to be misunderstood.  If people want to use
sounds, then that's fine;  I'm saying that dependence on them to an
excessive degree is not desirable if it leads to decisions on what programs
to use in a certain class when trying to decide between program a and b that
do roughly the same thing.  Browsers have various advantages and
disadvantages and sound is only one aspect of a program.
  Also, the changes being made in firefox, according to a review I've read,
make it even faster than Chrome.  It isn't much faster, at least now, and I
don't think it matters but if people read the article about these changes
posted last week from Marco's Accessibility blog, these changes may result
in screen-readers being far more capable to work on complex pages that have
embedded programs or where the pages are far more interactive than
traditional web pages, and that increasing numbers of web pages are, and
will be more complex over time.  Therefore, I find the attitude of blaming
Mozilla for what it says it intends to be only a temporary loss of
performance for blind users, and writing as though they are going to
permanently use a different browser without even seeing the results of the
work being done is disturbing.  At the moment, Chrome may be better than
Firefoxs in its latest version because of the changes.  But blind people may
be better served by what Mozilla is doing after the initial inconvenience.

  How often do sighted people complain about things like road construction
and repair, but would they never use the road again because of the temporary
inconvenience?  They may use a different road during the repairs and the
road may even be closed at times, but they return to it when it is in good
order again.

  Gene
  ----- Original Message -----

  From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
  To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
  Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  Well the beta I tried simply refused to say anything but unknown on any
  page, though most of the menus still worked.

  I'm not inclined to update since I use the sound, particularly the one
when
  a page has fully loaded and the one that tells me a link has in fact
  activated and of course download complete


  I have seen elsewhere where people think these sounds are pointless. I
  dispute this as everyone is different and I really only use browsers where
I
  can actually hear that things are going on. for example I've always
noticed
  that screenreaders sometimes do not figure out the page has loaded, but
  navigational sounds does and hence allows me to re focus the screenreader.
   Also I would not know if a download had completed if the download pane
was
  hidden without a sound.
   Some links click but clickables do not so sometimes you can figure out
what
  is which sort of link on a page this way. In a way it would be even better
  if button link and clickable had different sounds to save one getting
  confused.

  I think the list of things some of us want in a browser is obviously going
  to be different to what the sighted want, so one will really need somebody
  at Mozilla etc to write blind specific add ons for a browser.
   Its far easier when trying to teach somebody how to use a browser to be
  able to say, if you do not hear x then its not worked.
   Brian

  bglists@...
  Sent via blueyonder.
  Please address personal email to:-
  briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
  in the display name field.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@...>
  To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
  Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 6:42 PM
  Subject: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  > Hi.
  >
  > Well While brousing firefox ftp today I decided to try firefox 57 as it
  > was on releases today.
  >
  > What exactly was the fuss?
  >
  > Firefox interface loads fast, no lag, but I havn't tried big sites maybe
a
  > couple seconds for audiogames forum.
  >
  > Addons, noscript, aparently this will not work till actual release of
  > firefox.
  >
  > Navigational sounds.
  >
  > I am trying to find a replacement, the author of this said that because
  > the new interface doesn't allow for registry access one can't get the
list
  > of events to do things with.
  >
  > I tried 3 of them so far.
  >
  > Notification sound, noise and download sound.
  >
  > Download sound has no options or rather any way I can configure it to
  > suit.
  >
  > Noise has options but there are no default events set and I tried to add
  > what I wanted and define its sounds but I can't set values and going to
  > its website found that while there is a web version all features are
  > basically not there.
  >
  > Notification sound is another, but its got no options screen.
  >
  > Something like noise would be fine if it had an default event list which
  > just used the windows schemes directly to the files etc.
  >
  > I only need web navigation start and end, and download complete as a
  > start.
  >
  > If there was a way I could easily add events, or something that would be
  > good but I'd like a list for beginners I could import.
  >
  > Over those though, I did notice and turn on the extra privacy
protection,
  > I have left active the unwanted software protection but I heard from
some
  > that this can cause problems.
  >
  > I also read the article about accessibility services and how they can be
  > misused.
  >
  > It does say if you have a compatible jaws or nvda active on your system
  > that you should leave this active.
  >
  > This is interesting, dolphin stuff is not on this list it makes me
wander,
  > while I do use dolphin stuff myself for things their web stuff is only
for
  > ie and ie 6-8 mainly.
  >
  > Still its an observation only.
  >
  > I must say off the bat what I really like about firefox are the easy
  > option layouts, I just wish there was a way to extend them to well have
  > extras for addons rather than mucking about with the manager.
  >
  > I do like the fact you can have arrow navigation on.
  >
  > I did get noscript revived but when I hit a site with scripts on it
never
  > actually notified me at all.
  >
  > I guess I have to fiddle with it, I do hope thatnoscript does go out and
  > get released.
  >
  > Today is the 14th in nz and tomorrow it will be 14th in us and so, I am
  > probably going to have to keep firefox 57 loaded though I am tempted to
  > drop back to 56.02 for now and get my sounds back.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >










Re: quick navigation keys do not work

Gene
 

Your description of the problem doesn't match the unregistered dll files problem, at least not so far.  I've never seen such messages as not supported in the document described when this problem occurs nor any sort of irratic movement through the document.  I don't know why the commands work in Thunderbird nor what the unregistered dll files might cause to happen in Thunderbird. 
 
I'm not sure what to advise.  What I'll suggest is that you put the quarantened items back, if you can, and see if things work properly.  If they don't, you can try the procedure for registering dll files.  Then if things are working properly, you can scan with a good online scanner and something like malware bytes and see if the same files are flagged.  
 
Gene 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] quick navigation keys do not work

Interesting things is that I can navigate fine within email messages in Thunderbird. H takes me to all headings.





On 11/16/2017 7:24 PM, Gene wrote:
You can try to register the items but the items may no longer be there.  if they were considered threats, they may have been quaranteened.  You may have to restore them from quaranteen and then register them again.  But then there is the question of whether these are false positives or whether they have been infected.  I would suggest scanning with something else after you restore the files, if that is necessary.  A good online scanner might help you determine if Sofos (spelling) showed false positives or not. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:17 PM
Subject: [nvda] quick navigation keys do not work

This is how it goes, the best I understand it.


I ran a scan today, using Sophos Home. It removed a couple of things that it said were a threat. After this, I can no longer reliably use quick navigation keys to do much of anything, either in Chrome or Firefox. This is with the latest versions of both of these browsers installed. This occurs even with Firefox Nightly.


I can press h for headings, and it might take me to an edit field, or say that this isn't supported in the document, or take me to a button. How would I register again the dll's that pertain to web accessibility? This is the only thing I can think of that would be the issue in both browsers. Would a reinstall of NVDA fix this issue?


Re: quick navigation keys do not work

 

Interesting things is that I can navigate fine within email messages in Thunderbird. H takes me to all headings.





On 11/16/2017 7:24 PM, Gene wrote:
You can try to register the items but the items may no longer be there.  if they were considered threats, they may have been quaranteened.  You may have to restore them from quaranteen and then register them again.  But then there is the question of whether these are false positives or whether they have been infected.  I would suggest scanning with something else after you restore the files, if that is necessary.  A good online scanner might help you determine if Sofos (spelling) showed false positives or not. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:17 PM
Subject: [nvda] quick navigation keys do not work

This is how it goes, the best I understand it.


I ran a scan today, using Sophos Home. It removed a couple of things that it said were a threat. After this, I can no longer reliably use quick navigation keys to do much of anything, either in Chrome or Firefox. This is with the latest versions of both of these browsers installed. This occurs even with Firefox Nightly.


I can press h for headings, and it might take me to an edit field, or say that this isn't supported in the document, or take me to a button. How would I register again the dll's that pertain to web accessibility? This is the only thing I can think of that would be the issue in both browsers. Would a reinstall of NVDA fix this issue?


Re: quick navigation keys do not work

Gene
 

You can try to register the items but the items may no longer be there.  if they were considered threats, they may have been quaranteened.  You may have to restore them from quaranteen and then register them again.  But then there is the question of whether these are false positives or whether they have been infected.  I would suggest scanning with something else after you restore the files, if that is necessary.  A good online scanner might help you determine if Sofos (spelling) showed false positives or not. 
 
Gene

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:17 PM
Subject: [nvda] quick navigation keys do not work

This is how it goes, the best I understand it.


I ran a scan today, using Sophos Home. It removed a couple of things that it said were a threat. After this, I can no longer reliably use quick navigation keys to do much of anything, either in Chrome or Firefox. This is with the latest versions of both of these browsers installed. This occurs even with Firefox Nightly.


I can press h for headings, and it might take me to an edit field, or say that this isn't supported in the document, or take me to a button. How would I register again the dll's that pertain to web accessibility? This is the only thing I can think of that would be the issue in both browsers. Would a reinstall of NVDA fix this issue?


quick navigation keys do not work

 

This is how it goes, the best I understand it.


I ran a scan today, using Sophos Home. It removed a couple of things that it said were a threat. After this, I can no longer reliably use quick navigation keys to do much of anything, either in Chrome or Firefox. This is with the latest versions of both of these browsers installed. This occurs even with Firefox Nightly.


I can press h for headings, and it might take me to an edit field, or say that this isn't supported in the document, or take me to a button. How would I register again the dll's that pertain to web accessibility? This is the only thing I can think of that would be the issue in both browsers. Would a reinstall of NVDA fix this issue?


Re: nvda and youtube with google chrome

abdul muhamin
 

Its easy. Just press NVDA space on 2nd slider. That can be found after or before mute button. And use left or right aero to increes or decrees volume!


On Nov 17, 2017 5:04 AM, "Rosemarie Chavarria" <knitqueen2007@...> wrote:

I forgot how to do it. I'ts been awhile since I turned up the volume in youtube.

 

 

 

From: nvda@nvda.groups.io [mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io] On Behalf Of Josh Kennedy
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:20 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: [nvda] nvda and youtube with google chrome

 

hi

In google chrome with the latest NVDA, when you are watching a youtube video, how do you turn up and down the youtube video volume without affecting other applications volumes on the system in windows10?

 

Josh

 

-- 
sent with mozilla thunderbird



Re: nvda and youtube with google chrome

Rosemarie Chavarria
 

I forgot how to do it. I'ts been awhile since I turned up the volume in youtube.

 

 

 

From: nvda@nvda.groups.io [mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io] On Behalf Of Josh Kennedy
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:20 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: [nvda] nvda and youtube with google chrome

 

hi

In google chrome with the latest NVDA, when you are watching a youtube video, how do you turn up and down the youtube video volume without affecting other applications volumes on the system in windows10?

 

Josh

 

-- 
sent with mozilla thunderbird


Re: firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Gene
 

I wonder why people get such different results?  Is there anyone on the list who tests for Mozilla who might report this?  Other than report it, I'm not sure how users might collect information to give a possible explanation to the developers.
 
Gene

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Tried, and no luck.
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

I don't know whether you are using the 64 or 32 bit version but if you were to use the 32 bit version or the 32 bit version portable, I'm not sure if there is even a 64 bit version portable, you could probably get it to work, though we'll have to see if you try it. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Even that! isn't working here. The only screen reader I've kind of gotten to work with it was Narrator, and even then, it wasn't pretty.
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Regarding working with the new version of Firefox in Windows 7, I'm not interested in evaluating the new version enough to test it on a lot of web pages and in a lot of different tasks such as playing audio. It works here on my Windows 7 machine.  the main problem I found is that, when a page loads, I have to tab when the page should be loaded in order to have whatever needs to happen for the browser or screen-reader or whatever the case, to see anything on the page.  If I tab and wait a number of seconds after the page appears to have loaded, it then works with the screen-reader.  Before that, it appears blank, except that the title bar shows the page that is, or that is being loaded after the passage of a little time since I issue the open command.  I don't know what would happen if I tabbed earlier or much earlier, but I've been waiting until I hear NVDA announce the title bar announcing the title of the new page.  Others may want to experiment with shorter intervals.
 
Gene 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

I was clarifying my position because I wasn't sure it was stated as clearly as it should have been or if it was being understood as well as it should have been.  And I think despite you evidently disagreeing, that the underlying poingt is worth considering.  Excessive dependence on optional features may lead to problems in certain contexts.  If its your computer, you can set it up as you wish.  If it's a friends computer or a work computer, or a library computer, you may not be able to and excessive dependence can make it harder to do things in various contexts than otherwise.
 
Gene. 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Since you are determined to have an argument about this, would you like a
five minute argument or a longer one we have arguments on offer this week!

Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene" <gsasner@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


There are some sounds that are important because you can't get information
efficiently about something such as a USB connection in other ways.  I may
not have made it as clear as I should have in my first message, but I'm
talking specifically about sounds in contexts such as browser sounds, where
the information can be efficiently gotten in other ways.  There are
advantages and disadvantages in various browsers but making whether sounds
are available in a browser be a very important factor in determining whether
to use that browser is, in my opinion, emphasizing sounds that are optional
to a far more central position than they should be.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: brian
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:07 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


            I think that the reason that some blind people like sounds is it
gives us a indacation of what's going on just like the sighted can see at
glance.  It's like windows sounds.  We have the windows music to let us know
that our computer is on.  We have other windows sounds like the sound we
hear when we plug a thumbdrive in or unplug it.  If we did not hear this
sound we would think that there is a problem but if there was no sound then
how would we know that there was a problem.  Sounds may not be necessary but
they can really help us greatly to know what is happening.  I don't have my
sounds on in my webie brouser but I would not fault somone if they did.  I
do think that it's important to a sound for down loads because if there is a
problem with your internet connection then you would know.  Again the
sighted can just look but we can't.  Alot of people don't have good internet
and it can and does loose connection quite frequently.

Brian Sackrider




On 11/14/2017 9:04 AM, Gene wrote:

  I want to make my position clear and discuss another aspect of the current
situation in this rather long message.

  If people want to use sounds, there is nothing wrong with that but you
don't need them and my position is that being so dependent on them that you
make that a major determining factor on what browser to use is being too
dependent.  That's my position.  I didn't say they are worthless nor that
people shouldn't use them.  I'm talking about being too dependent on one
aspect of a program when that aspect isn't central to the program and when
there may be better programs in general that don't have this specific
characteristic.
  I'm saying that if someone considers sounds in browsers to be so important
that that is a major factor in deciding what browser to use, I consider that
to be too dependent.  There are other efficient ways to tell things when
using a browser.  If a page hasn't loaded, you can't move around.  Tabbing
or down arrowing once or twice will tell you.  I'm not saying, as you said,
that they are pointless.  I'm saying that almost anything sounds do, can be
either efficiently inferred or checked by other methods and that changing
from one browser to another based either only or largely on sounds, is
making this one characteristic of a browser too important.

  I don't want my position to be misunderstood.  If people want to use
sounds, then that's fine;  I'm saying that dependence on them to an
excessive degree is not desirable if it leads to decisions on what programs
to use in a certain class when trying to decide between program a and b that
do roughly the same thing.  Browsers have various advantages and
disadvantages and sound is only one aspect of a program.
  Also, the changes being made in firefox, according to a review I've read,
make it even faster than Chrome.  It isn't much faster, at least now, and I
don't think it matters but if people read the article about these changes
posted last week from Marco's Accessibility blog, these changes may result
in screen-readers being far more capable to work on complex pages that have
embedded programs or where the pages are far more interactive than
traditional web pages, and that increasing numbers of web pages are, and
will be more complex over time.  Therefore, I find the attitude of blaming
Mozilla for what it says it intends to be only a temporary loss of
performance for blind users, and writing as though they are going to
permanently use a different browser without even seeing the results of the
work being done is disturbing.  At the moment, Chrome may be better than
Firefoxs in its latest version because of the changes.  But blind people may
be better served by what Mozilla is doing after the initial inconvenience.

  How often do sighted people complain about things like road construction
and repair, but would they never use the road again because of the temporary
inconvenience?  They may use a different road during the repairs and the
road may even be closed at times, but they return to it when it is in good
order again.

  Gene
  ----- Original Message -----

  From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
  To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
  Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  Well the beta I tried simply refused to say anything but unknown on any
  page, though most of the menus still worked.

  I'm not inclined to update since I use the sound, particularly the one
when
  a page has fully loaded and the one that tells me a link has in fact
  activated and of course download complete


  I have seen elsewhere where people think these sounds are pointless. I
  dispute this as everyone is different and I really only use browsers where
I
  can actually hear that things are going on. for example I've always
noticed
  that screenreaders sometimes do not figure out the page has loaded, but
  navigational sounds does and hence allows me to re focus the screenreader.
   Also I would not know if a download had completed if the download pane
was
  hidden without a sound.
   Some links click but clickables do not so sometimes you can figure out
what
  is which sort of link on a page this way. In a way it would be even better
  if button link and clickable had different sounds to save one getting
  confused.

  I think the list of things some of us want in a browser is obviously going
  to be different to what the sighted want, so one will really need somebody
  at Mozilla etc to write blind specific add ons for a browser.
   Its far easier when trying to teach somebody how to use a browser to be
  able to say, if you do not hear x then its not worked.
   Brian

  bglists@...
  Sent via blueyonder.
  Please address personal email to:-
  briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
  in the display name field.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@...>
  To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
  Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 6:42 PM
  Subject: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  > Hi.
  >
  > Well While brousing firefox ftp today I decided to try firefox 57 as it
  > was on releases today.
  >
  > What exactly was the fuss?
  >
  > Firefox interface loads fast, no lag, but I havn't tried big sites maybe
a
  > couple seconds for audiogames forum.
  >
  > Addons, noscript, aparently this will not work till actual release of
  > firefox.
  >
  > Navigational sounds.
  >
  > I am trying to find a replacement, the author of this said that because
  > the new interface doesn't allow for registry access one can't get the
list
  > of events to do things with.
  >
  > I tried 3 of them so far.
  >
  > Notification sound, noise and download sound.
  >
  > Download sound has no options or rather any way I can configure it to
  > suit.
  >
  > Noise has options but there are no default events set and I tried to add
  > what I wanted and define its sounds but I can't set values and going to
  > its website found that while there is a web version all features are
  > basically not there.
  >
  > Notification sound is another, but its got no options screen.
  >
  > Something like noise would be fine if it had an default event list which
  > just used the windows schemes directly to the files etc.
  >
  > I only need web navigation start and end, and download complete as a
  > start.
  >
  > If there was a way I could easily add events, or something that would be
  > good but I'd like a list for beginners I could import.
  >
  > Over those though, I did notice and turn on the extra privacy
protection,
  > I have left active the unwanted software protection but I heard from
some
  > that this can cause problems.
  >
  > I also read the article about accessibility services and how they can be
  > misused.
  >
  > It does say if you have a compatible jaws or nvda active on your system
  > that you should leave this active.
  >
  > This is interesting, dolphin stuff is not on this list it makes me
wander,
  > while I do use dolphin stuff myself for things their web stuff is only
for
  > ie and ie 6-8 mainly.
  >
  > Still its an observation only.
  >
  > I must say off the bat what I really like about firefox are the easy
  > option layouts, I just wish there was a way to extend them to well have
  > extras for addons rather than mucking about with the manager.
  >
  > I do like the fact you can have arrow navigation on.
  >
  > I did get noscript revived but when I hit a site with scripts on it
never
  > actually notified me at all.
  >
  > I guess I have to fiddle with it, I do hope thatnoscript does go out and
  > get released.
  >
  > Today is the 14th in nz and tomorrow it will be 14th in us and so, I am
  > probably going to have to keep firefox 57 loaded though I am tempted to
  > drop back to 56.02 for now and get my sounds back.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >










nvda and youtube with google chrome

Josh Kennedy
 

hi

In google chrome with the latest NVDA, when you are watching a youtube video, how do you turn up and down the youtube video volume without affecting other applications volumes on the system in windows10?


Josh


-- 
sent with mozilla thunderbird


Re: firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Christopher-Mark Gilland <clgilland07@...>
 


Tried, and no luck.
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

I don't know whether you are using the 64 or 32 bit version but if you were to use the 32 bit version or the 32 bit version portable, I'm not sure if there is even a 64 bit version portable, you could probably get it to work, though we'll have to see if you try it. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Even that! isn't working here. The only screen reader I've kind of gotten to work with it was Narrator, and even then, it wasn't pretty.
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Regarding working with the new version of Firefox in Windows 7, I'm not interested in evaluating the new version enough to test it on a lot of web pages and in a lot of different tasks such as playing audio. It works here on my Windows 7 machine.  the main problem I found is that, when a page loads, I have to tab when the page should be loaded in order to have whatever needs to happen for the browser or screen-reader or whatever the case, to see anything on the page.  If I tab and wait a number of seconds after the page appears to have loaded, it then works with the screen-reader.  Before that, it appears blank, except that the title bar shows the page that is, or that is being loaded after the passage of a little time since I issue the open command.  I don't know what would happen if I tabbed earlier or much earlier, but I've been waiting until I hear NVDA announce the title bar announcing the title of the new page.  Others may want to experiment with shorter intervals.
 
Gene 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

I was clarifying my position because I wasn't sure it was stated as clearly as it should have been or if it was being understood as well as it should have been.  And I think despite you evidently disagreeing, that the underlying poingt is worth considering.  Excessive dependence on optional features may lead to problems in certain contexts.  If its your computer, you can set it up as you wish.  If it's a friends computer or a work computer, or a library computer, you may not be able to and excessive dependence can make it harder to do things in various contexts than otherwise.
 
Gene. 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Since you are determined to have an argument about this, would you like a
five minute argument or a longer one we have arguments on offer this week!

Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene" <gsasner@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


There are some sounds that are important because you can't get information
efficiently about something such as a USB connection in other ways.  I may
not have made it as clear as I should have in my first message, but I'm
talking specifically about sounds in contexts such as browser sounds, where
the information can be efficiently gotten in other ways.  There are
advantages and disadvantages in various browsers but making whether sounds
are available in a browser be a very important factor in determining whether
to use that browser is, in my opinion, emphasizing sounds that are optional
to a far more central position than they should be.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: brian
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:07 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


            I think that the reason that some blind people like sounds is it
gives us a indacation of what's going on just like the sighted can see at
glance.  It's like windows sounds.  We have the windows music to let us know
that our computer is on.  We have other windows sounds like the sound we
hear when we plug a thumbdrive in or unplug it.  If we did not hear this
sound we would think that there is a problem but if there was no sound then
how would we know that there was a problem.  Sounds may not be necessary but
they can really help us greatly to know what is happening.  I don't have my
sounds on in my webie brouser but I would not fault somone if they did.  I
do think that it's important to a sound for down loads because if there is a
problem with your internet connection then you would know.  Again the
sighted can just look but we can't.  Alot of people don't have good internet
and it can and does loose connection quite frequently.

Brian Sackrider




On 11/14/2017 9:04 AM, Gene wrote:

  I want to make my position clear and discuss another aspect of the current
situation in this rather long message.

  If people want to use sounds, there is nothing wrong with that but you
don't need them and my position is that being so dependent on them that you
make that a major determining factor on what browser to use is being too
dependent.  That's my position.  I didn't say they are worthless nor that
people shouldn't use them.  I'm talking about being too dependent on one
aspect of a program when that aspect isn't central to the program and when
there may be better programs in general that don't have this specific
characteristic.
  I'm saying that if someone considers sounds in browsers to be so important
that that is a major factor in deciding what browser to use, I consider that
to be too dependent.  There are other efficient ways to tell things when
using a browser.  If a page hasn't loaded, you can't move around.  Tabbing
or down arrowing once or twice will tell you.  I'm not saying, as you said,
that they are pointless.  I'm saying that almost anything sounds do, can be
either efficiently inferred or checked by other methods and that changing
from one browser to another based either only or largely on sounds, is
making this one characteristic of a browser too important.

  I don't want my position to be misunderstood.  If people want to use
sounds, then that's fine;  I'm saying that dependence on them to an
excessive degree is not desirable if it leads to decisions on what programs
to use in a certain class when trying to decide between program a and b that
do roughly the same thing.  Browsers have various advantages and
disadvantages and sound is only one aspect of a program.
  Also, the changes being made in firefox, according to a review I've read,
make it even faster than Chrome.  It isn't much faster, at least now, and I
don't think it matters but if people read the article about these changes
posted last week from Marco's Accessibility blog, these changes may result
in screen-readers being far more capable to work on complex pages that have
embedded programs or where the pages are far more interactive than
traditional web pages, and that increasing numbers of web pages are, and
will be more complex over time.  Therefore, I find the attitude of blaming
Mozilla for what it says it intends to be only a temporary loss of
performance for blind users, and writing as though they are going to
permanently use a different browser without even seeing the results of the
work being done is disturbing.  At the moment, Chrome may be better than
Firefoxs in its latest version because of the changes.  But blind people may
be better served by what Mozilla is doing after the initial inconvenience.

  How often do sighted people complain about things like road construction
and repair, but would they never use the road again because of the temporary
inconvenience?  They may use a different road during the repairs and the
road may even be closed at times, but they return to it when it is in good
order again.

  Gene
  ----- Original Message -----

  From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
  To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
  Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  Well the beta I tried simply refused to say anything but unknown on any
  page, though most of the menus still worked.

  I'm not inclined to update since I use the sound, particularly the one
when
  a page has fully loaded and the one that tells me a link has in fact
  activated and of course download complete


  I have seen elsewhere where people think these sounds are pointless. I
  dispute this as everyone is different and I really only use browsers where
I
  can actually hear that things are going on. for example I've always
noticed
  that screenreaders sometimes do not figure out the page has loaded, but
  navigational sounds does and hence allows me to re focus the screenreader.
   Also I would not know if a download had completed if the download pane
was
  hidden without a sound.
   Some links click but clickables do not so sometimes you can figure out
what
  is which sort of link on a page this way. In a way it would be even better
  if button link and clickable had different sounds to save one getting
  confused.

  I think the list of things some of us want in a browser is obviously going
  to be different to what the sighted want, so one will really need somebody
  at Mozilla etc to write blind specific add ons for a browser.
   Its far easier when trying to teach somebody how to use a browser to be
  able to say, if you do not hear x then its not worked.
   Brian

  bglists@...
  Sent via blueyonder.
  Please address personal email to:-
  briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
  in the display name field.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@...>
  To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
  Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 6:42 PM
  Subject: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  > Hi.
  >
  > Well While brousing firefox ftp today I decided to try firefox 57 as it
  > was on releases today.
  >
  > What exactly was the fuss?
  >
  > Firefox interface loads fast, no lag, but I havn't tried big sites maybe
a
  > couple seconds for audiogames forum.
  >
  > Addons, noscript, aparently this will not work till actual release of
  > firefox.
  >
  > Navigational sounds.
  >
  > I am trying to find a replacement, the author of this said that because
  > the new interface doesn't allow for registry access one can't get the
list
  > of events to do things with.
  >
  > I tried 3 of them so far.
  >
  > Notification sound, noise and download sound.
  >
  > Download sound has no options or rather any way I can configure it to
  > suit.
  >
  > Noise has options but there are no default events set and I tried to add
  > what I wanted and define its sounds but I can't set values and going to
  > its website found that while there is a web version all features are
  > basically not there.
  >
  > Notification sound is another, but its got no options screen.
  >
  > Something like noise would be fine if it had an default event list which
  > just used the windows schemes directly to the files etc.
  >
  > I only need web navigation start and end, and download complete as a
  > start.
  >
  > If there was a way I could easily add events, or something that would be
  > good but I'd like a list for beginners I could import.
  >
  > Over those though, I did notice and turn on the extra privacy
protection,
  > I have left active the unwanted software protection but I heard from
some
  > that this can cause problems.
  >
  > I also read the article about accessibility services and how they can be
  > misused.
  >
  > It does say if you have a compatible jaws or nvda active on your system
  > that you should leave this active.
  >
  > This is interesting, dolphin stuff is not on this list it makes me
wander,
  > while I do use dolphin stuff myself for things their web stuff is only
for
  > ie and ie 6-8 mainly.
  >
  > Still its an observation only.
  >
  > I must say off the bat what I really like about firefox are the easy
  > option layouts, I just wish there was a way to extend them to well have
  > extras for addons rather than mucking about with the manager.
  >
  > I do like the fact you can have arrow navigation on.
  >
  > I did get noscript revived but when I hit a site with scripts on it
never
  > actually notified me at all.
  >
  > I guess I have to fiddle with it, I do hope thatnoscript does go out and
  > get released.
  >
  > Today is the 14th in nz and tomorrow it will be 14th in us and so, I am
  > probably going to have to keep firefox 57 loaded though I am tempted to
  > drop back to 56.02 for now and get my sounds back.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >










Re: firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Gene
 

I don't know whether you are using the 64 or 32 bit version but if you were to use the 32 bit version or the 32 bit version portable, I'm not sure if there is even a 64 bit version portable, you could probably get it to work, though we'll have to see if you try it. 
 
Gene

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Even that! isn't working here. The only screen reader I've kind of gotten to work with it was Narrator, and even then, it wasn't pretty.
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Regarding working with the new version of Firefox in Windows 7, I'm not interested in evaluating the new version enough to test it on a lot of web pages and in a lot of different tasks such as playing audio. It works here on my Windows 7 machine.  the main problem I found is that, when a page loads, I have to tab when the page should be loaded in order to have whatever needs to happen for the browser or screen-reader or whatever the case, to see anything on the page.  If I tab and wait a number of seconds after the page appears to have loaded, it then works with the screen-reader.  Before that, it appears blank, except that the title bar shows the page that is, or that is being loaded after the passage of a little time since I issue the open command.  I don't know what would happen if I tabbed earlier or much earlier, but I've been waiting until I hear NVDA announce the title bar announcing the title of the new page.  Others may want to experiment with shorter intervals.
 
Gene 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

I was clarifying my position because I wasn't sure it was stated as clearly as it should have been or if it was being understood as well as it should have been.  And I think despite you evidently disagreeing, that the underlying poingt is worth considering.  Excessive dependence on optional features may lead to problems in certain contexts.  If its your computer, you can set it up as you wish.  If it's a friends computer or a work computer, or a library computer, you may not be able to and excessive dependence can make it harder to do things in various contexts than otherwise.
 
Gene. 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Since you are determined to have an argument about this, would you like a
five minute argument or a longer one we have arguments on offer this week!

Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene" <gsasner@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


There are some sounds that are important because you can't get information
efficiently about something such as a USB connection in other ways.  I may
not have made it as clear as I should have in my first message, but I'm
talking specifically about sounds in contexts such as browser sounds, where
the information can be efficiently gotten in other ways.  There are
advantages and disadvantages in various browsers but making whether sounds
are available in a browser be a very important factor in determining whether
to use that browser is, in my opinion, emphasizing sounds that are optional
to a far more central position than they should be.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: brian
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:07 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


            I think that the reason that some blind people like sounds is it
gives us a indacation of what's going on just like the sighted can see at
glance.  It's like windows sounds.  We have the windows music to let us know
that our computer is on.  We have other windows sounds like the sound we
hear when we plug a thumbdrive in or unplug it.  If we did not hear this
sound we would think that there is a problem but if there was no sound then
how would we know that there was a problem.  Sounds may not be necessary but
they can really help us greatly to know what is happening.  I don't have my
sounds on in my webie brouser but I would not fault somone if they did.  I
do think that it's important to a sound for down loads because if there is a
problem with your internet connection then you would know.  Again the
sighted can just look but we can't.  Alot of people don't have good internet
and it can and does loose connection quite frequently.

Brian Sackrider




On 11/14/2017 9:04 AM, Gene wrote:

  I want to make my position clear and discuss another aspect of the current
situation in this rather long message.

  If people want to use sounds, there is nothing wrong with that but you
don't need them and my position is that being so dependent on them that you
make that a major determining factor on what browser to use is being too
dependent.  That's my position.  I didn't say they are worthless nor that
people shouldn't use them.  I'm talking about being too dependent on one
aspect of a program when that aspect isn't central to the program and when
there may be better programs in general that don't have this specific
characteristic.
  I'm saying that if someone considers sounds in browsers to be so important
that that is a major factor in deciding what browser to use, I consider that
to be too dependent.  There are other efficient ways to tell things when
using a browser.  If a page hasn't loaded, you can't move around.  Tabbing
or down arrowing once or twice will tell you.  I'm not saying, as you said,
that they are pointless.  I'm saying that almost anything sounds do, can be
either efficiently inferred or checked by other methods and that changing
from one browser to another based either only or largely on sounds, is
making this one characteristic of a browser too important.

  I don't want my position to be misunderstood.  If people want to use
sounds, then that's fine;  I'm saying that dependence on them to an
excessive degree is not desirable if it leads to decisions on what programs
to use in a certain class when trying to decide between program a and b that
do roughly the same thing.  Browsers have various advantages and
disadvantages and sound is only one aspect of a program.
  Also, the changes being made in firefox, according to a review I've read,
make it even faster than Chrome.  It isn't much faster, at least now, and I
don't think it matters but if people read the article about these changes
posted last week from Marco's Accessibility blog, these changes may result
in screen-readers being far more capable to work on complex pages that have
embedded programs or where the pages are far more interactive than
traditional web pages, and that increasing numbers of web pages are, and
will be more complex over time.  Therefore, I find the attitude of blaming
Mozilla for what it says it intends to be only a temporary loss of
performance for blind users, and writing as though they are going to
permanently use a different browser without even seeing the results of the
work being done is disturbing.  At the moment, Chrome may be better than
Firefoxs in its latest version because of the changes.  But blind people may
be better served by what Mozilla is doing after the initial inconvenience.

  How often do sighted people complain about things like road construction
and repair, but would they never use the road again because of the temporary
inconvenience?  They may use a different road during the repairs and the
road may even be closed at times, but they return to it when it is in good
order again.

  Gene
  ----- Original Message -----

  From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
  To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
  Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  Well the beta I tried simply refused to say anything but unknown on any
  page, though most of the menus still worked.

  I'm not inclined to update since I use the sound, particularly the one
when
  a page has fully loaded and the one that tells me a link has in fact
  activated and of course download complete


  I have seen elsewhere where people think these sounds are pointless. I
  dispute this as everyone is different and I really only use browsers where
I
  can actually hear that things are going on. for example I've always
noticed
  that screenreaders sometimes do not figure out the page has loaded, but
  navigational sounds does and hence allows me to re focus the screenreader.
   Also I would not know if a download had completed if the download pane
was
  hidden without a sound.
   Some links click but clickables do not so sometimes you can figure out
what
  is which sort of link on a page this way. In a way it would be even better
  if button link and clickable had different sounds to save one getting
  confused.

  I think the list of things some of us want in a browser is obviously going
  to be different to what the sighted want, so one will really need somebody
  at Mozilla etc to write blind specific add ons for a browser.
   Its far easier when trying to teach somebody how to use a browser to be
  able to say, if you do not hear x then its not worked.
   Brian

  bglists@...
  Sent via blueyonder.
  Please address personal email to:-
  briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
  in the display name field.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@...>
  To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
  Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 6:42 PM
  Subject: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  > Hi.
  >
  > Well While brousing firefox ftp today I decided to try firefox 57 as it
  > was on releases today.
  >
  > What exactly was the fuss?
  >
  > Firefox interface loads fast, no lag, but I havn't tried big sites maybe
a
  > couple seconds for audiogames forum.
  >
  > Addons, noscript, aparently this will not work till actual release of
  > firefox.
  >
  > Navigational sounds.
  >
  > I am trying to find a replacement, the author of this said that because
  > the new interface doesn't allow for registry access one can't get the
list
  > of events to do things with.
  >
  > I tried 3 of them so far.
  >
  > Notification sound, noise and download sound.
  >
  > Download sound has no options or rather any way I can configure it to
  > suit.
  >
  > Noise has options but there are no default events set and I tried to add
  > what I wanted and define its sounds but I can't set values and going to
  > its website found that while there is a web version all features are
  > basically not there.
  >
  > Notification sound is another, but its got no options screen.
  >
  > Something like noise would be fine if it had an default event list which
  > just used the windows schemes directly to the files etc.
  >
  > I only need web navigation start and end, and download complete as a
  > start.
  >
  > If there was a way I could easily add events, or something that would be
  > good but I'd like a list for beginners I could import.
  >
  > Over those though, I did notice and turn on the extra privacy
protection,
  > I have left active the unwanted software protection but I heard from
some
  > that this can cause problems.
  >
  > I also read the article about accessibility services and how they can be
  > misused.
  >
  > It does say if you have a compatible jaws or nvda active on your system
  > that you should leave this active.
  >
  > This is interesting, dolphin stuff is not on this list it makes me
wander,
  > while I do use dolphin stuff myself for things their web stuff is only
for
  > ie and ie 6-8 mainly.
  >
  > Still its an observation only.
  >
  > I must say off the bat what I really like about firefox are the easy
  > option layouts, I just wish there was a way to extend them to well have
  > extras for addons rather than mucking about with the manager.
  >
  > I do like the fact you can have arrow navigation on.
  >
  > I did get noscript revived but when I hit a site with scripts on it
never
  > actually notified me at all.
  >
  > I guess I have to fiddle with it, I do hope thatnoscript does go out and
  > get released.
  >
  > Today is the 14th in nz and tomorrow it will be 14th in us and so, I am
  > probably going to have to keep firefox 57 loaded though I am tempted to
  > drop back to 56.02 for now and get my sounds back.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >










Re: the new firefox quanttum

 

I was a bit brassed off that I couldn't get events working but till the extentions improve where there can be some, and I can start accessing options again in addons I can't do anything.

The only important one I needed was the download finnished one and I got that one.

Noscript will come, everything else I own works, the interface works and true there are a few tricks with sites download lists and bt sync.

However there are less clickables appearing constantly, a disk clean so far has not mangled up things.

And while I had to wrip out my profile completely for it, I do feel that its all working as it should at least for now.

Its also gotten to the stage where if the weather continues as it seems to that I don't care to sit in front of my pc all day concentrating on installing software.

I have 1 ms support issue on the cards but I have books to read, games to play, and if things work well and I can finally clear all the birds from my roof, I would really like to just get outside and do something else rather than my pc.

On 17/11/2017 10:50 a.m., Christopher-Mark Gilland wrote:
I wasn't gonna jump in here, but frankly, I agree, and find Lino's comment to be a bit rude in nature. If it works for you, then help us find a sollution. No one's complaining. We're only making factual statements on what we're seeing.

Just for the record, I, too, with NVDA, and! with JFW both tried V57, and couldn't get it working at all, so obviously, Lino, people are! having issues, whehter you care to admit it or not. Enough said, Mucelini boy? Hint hint from 2007?
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries

http://www.gshministry.org
(980) 500-9575
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] the new firefox quanttum


its not working at all end of story. this has to be an issue as more than
one of us find this on 57. I think it may have been you who said some time
ago, do not run betas.

I think certain people on this list need to realise that everybody's view is
valid for them, and not let the argument go on about this when there are
other more pressing issues like why some people find it works and others do
not. Don't force others to fit your own mould, we are not all the same.
Brian

bglists@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lino Morales" <linomorales001@gmail.com>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] the new firefox quanttum


> What damage? I don't understand what you dolts are griping about! Look
> I'm running beta 58 3 and yeah its a bit slow, but not so slow you are
> on the days of dialup. It can be done with NVDA. Now with that other
> screen reader I won't discuss anymore on here well try FF 57 or later at
> your own risk.
>
> On 11/15/2017 3:56 PM, Scott VanDeWalle wrote:
>>
>> Yeah I got it now too and its alright I suppose.
>>
>> I guess now it will be up to the nvda developers to fix the damage
>> that has been done like screen reader manufactrers always seem to have
>> to end up doing. Smile
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>> Windows 10
>>
>> *From: *Chris <mailto:chrismedley@btinternet.com>
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:16 PM
>> *To: *nvda@nvda.groups.io <mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io>
>> *Subject: *Re: [nvda] the new firefox quanttum
>>
>> Well I’m using nightly 59.01 and that seems ok
>>
>> So maybe try the later one
>>
>> *From: *Scott VanDeWalle <mailto:scottvandewalle2@gmail.com>
>> *Sent: *14 November 2017 21:43
>> *To: *nvda@nvda.groups.io <mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io>
>> *Subject: *[nvda] the new firefox quanttum
>>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> I just installed the new firefox.
>>
>> The only thing wrong with it as far as I’m concerned is that it is
>> slower.
>>
>> So for now I’ll either use google chrome or edge as my default browser.
>>
>> I’m using the new nightly firefox 58, and it is not much better, as
>> promised it would be.
>>
>> Just my opinions though.
>>
>> Have a good da y.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>




Re: firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Christopher-Mark Gilland <clgilland07@...>
 


Even that! isn't working here. The only screen reader I've kind of gotten to work with it was Narrator, and even then, it wasn't pretty.
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Regarding working with the new version of Firefox in Windows 7, I'm not interested in evaluating the new version enough to test it on a lot of web pages and in a lot of different tasks such as playing audio. It works here on my Windows 7 machine.  the main problem I found is that, when a page loads, I have to tab when the page should be loaded in order to have whatever needs to happen for the browser or screen-reader or whatever the case, to see anything on the page.  If I tab and wait a number of seconds after the page appears to have loaded, it then works with the screen-reader.  Before that, it appears blank, except that the title bar shows the page that is, or that is being loaded after the passage of a little time since I issue the open command.  I don't know what would happen if I tabbed earlier or much earlier, but I've been waiting until I hear NVDA announce the title bar announcing the title of the new page.  Others may want to experiment with shorter intervals.
 
Gene 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

I was clarifying my position because I wasn't sure it was stated as clearly as it should have been or if it was being understood as well as it should have been.  And I think despite you evidently disagreeing, that the underlying poingt is worth considering.  Excessive dependence on optional features may lead to problems in certain contexts.  If its your computer, you can set it up as you wish.  If it's a friends computer or a work computer, or a library computer, you may not be able to and excessive dependence can make it harder to do things in various contexts than otherwise.
 
Gene. 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Since you are determined to have an argument about this, would you like a
five minute argument or a longer one we have arguments on offer this week!

Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene" <gsasner@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


There are some sounds that are important because you can't get information
efficiently about something such as a USB connection in other ways.  I may
not have made it as clear as I should have in my first message, but I'm
talking specifically about sounds in contexts such as browser sounds, where
the information can be efficiently gotten in other ways.  There are
advantages and disadvantages in various browsers but making whether sounds
are available in a browser be a very important factor in determining whether
to use that browser is, in my opinion, emphasizing sounds that are optional
to a far more central position than they should be.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: brian
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:07 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


            I think that the reason that some blind people like sounds is it
gives us a indacation of what's going on just like the sighted can see at
glance.  It's like windows sounds.  We have the windows music to let us know
that our computer is on.  We have other windows sounds like the sound we
hear when we plug a thumbdrive in or unplug it.  If we did not hear this
sound we would think that there is a problem but if there was no sound then
how would we know that there was a problem.  Sounds may not be necessary but
they can really help us greatly to know what is happening.  I don't have my
sounds on in my webie brouser but I would not fault somone if they did.  I
do think that it's important to a sound for down loads because if there is a
problem with your internet connection then you would know.  Again the
sighted can just look but we can't.  Alot of people don't have good internet
and it can and does loose connection quite frequently.

Brian Sackrider




On 11/14/2017 9:04 AM, Gene wrote:

  I want to make my position clear and discuss another aspect of the current
situation in this rather long message.

  If people want to use sounds, there is nothing wrong with that but you
don't need them and my position is that being so dependent on them that you
make that a major determining factor on what browser to use is being too
dependent.  That's my position.  I didn't say they are worthless nor that
people shouldn't use them.  I'm talking about being too dependent on one
aspect of a program when that aspect isn't central to the program and when
there may be better programs in general that don't have this specific
characteristic.
  I'm saying that if someone considers sounds in browsers to be so important
that that is a major factor in deciding what browser to use, I consider that
to be too dependent.  There are other efficient ways to tell things when
using a browser.  If a page hasn't loaded, you can't move around.  Tabbing
or down arrowing once or twice will tell you.  I'm not saying, as you said,
that they are pointless.  I'm saying that almost anything sounds do, can be
either efficiently inferred or checked by other methods and that changing
from one browser to another based either only or largely on sounds, is
making this one characteristic of a browser too important.

  I don't want my position to be misunderstood.  If people want to use
sounds, then that's fine;  I'm saying that dependence on them to an
excessive degree is not desirable if it leads to decisions on what programs
to use in a certain class when trying to decide between program a and b that
do roughly the same thing.  Browsers have various advantages and
disadvantages and sound is only one aspect of a program.
  Also, the changes being made in firefox, according to a review I've read,
make it even faster than Chrome.  It isn't much faster, at least now, and I
don't think it matters but if people read the article about these changes
posted last week from Marco's Accessibility blog, these changes may result
in screen-readers being far more capable to work on complex pages that have
embedded programs or where the pages are far more interactive than
traditional web pages, and that increasing numbers of web pages are, and
will be more complex over time.  Therefore, I find the attitude of blaming
Mozilla for what it says it intends to be only a temporary loss of
performance for blind users, and writing as though they are going to
permanently use a different browser without even seeing the results of the
work being done is disturbing.  At the moment, Chrome may be better than
Firefoxs in its latest version because of the changes.  But blind people may
be better served by what Mozilla is doing after the initial inconvenience.

  How often do sighted people complain about things like road construction
and repair, but would they never use the road again because of the temporary
inconvenience?  They may use a different road during the repairs and the
road may even be closed at times, but they return to it when it is in good
order again.

  Gene
  ----- Original Message -----

  From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
  To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
  Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  Well the beta I tried simply refused to say anything but unknown on any
  page, though most of the menus still worked.

  I'm not inclined to update since I use the sound, particularly the one
when
  a page has fully loaded and the one that tells me a link has in fact
  activated and of course download complete


  I have seen elsewhere where people think these sounds are pointless. I
  dispute this as everyone is different and I really only use browsers where
I
  can actually hear that things are going on. for example I've always
noticed
  that screenreaders sometimes do not figure out the page has loaded, but
  navigational sounds does and hence allows me to re focus the screenreader.
   Also I would not know if a download had completed if the download pane
was
  hidden without a sound.
   Some links click but clickables do not so sometimes you can figure out
what
  is which sort of link on a page this way. In a way it would be even better
  if button link and clickable had different sounds to save one getting
  confused.

  I think the list of things some of us want in a browser is obviously going
  to be different to what the sighted want, so one will really need somebody
  at Mozilla etc to write blind specific add ons for a browser.
   Its far easier when trying to teach somebody how to use a browser to be
  able to say, if you do not hear x then its not worked.
   Brian

  bglists@...
  Sent via blueyonder.
  Please address personal email to:-
  briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
  in the display name field.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@...>
  To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
  Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 6:42 PM
  Subject: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  > Hi.
  >
  > Well While brousing firefox ftp today I decided to try firefox 57 as it
  > was on releases today.
  >
  > What exactly was the fuss?
  >
  > Firefox interface loads fast, no lag, but I havn't tried big sites maybe
a
  > couple seconds for audiogames forum.
  >
  > Addons, noscript, aparently this will not work till actual release of
  > firefox.
  >
  > Navigational sounds.
  >
  > I am trying to find a replacement, the author of this said that because
  > the new interface doesn't allow for registry access one can't get the
list
  > of events to do things with.
  >
  > I tried 3 of them so far.
  >
  > Notification sound, noise and download sound.
  >
  > Download sound has no options or rather any way I can configure it to
  > suit.
  >
  > Noise has options but there are no default events set and I tried to add
  > what I wanted and define its sounds but I can't set values and going to
  > its website found that while there is a web version all features are
  > basically not there.
  >
  > Notification sound is another, but its got no options screen.
  >
  > Something like noise would be fine if it had an default event list which
  > just used the windows schemes directly to the files etc.
  >
  > I only need web navigation start and end, and download complete as a
  > start.
  >
  > If there was a way I could easily add events, or something that would be
  > good but I'd like a list for beginners I could import.
  >
  > Over those though, I did notice and turn on the extra privacy
protection,
  > I have left active the unwanted software protection but I heard from
some
  > that this can cause problems.
  >
  > I also read the article about accessibility services and how they can be
  > misused.
  >
  > It does say if you have a compatible jaws or nvda active on your system
  > that you should leave this active.
  >
  > This is interesting, dolphin stuff is not on this list it makes me
wander,
  > while I do use dolphin stuff myself for things their web stuff is only
for
  > ie and ie 6-8 mainly.
  >
  > Still its an observation only.
  >
  > I must say off the bat what I really like about firefox are the easy
  > option layouts, I just wish there was a way to extend them to well have
  > extras for addons rather than mucking about with the manager.
  >
  > I do like the fact you can have arrow navigation on.
  >
  > I did get noscript revived but when I hit a site with scripts on it
never
  > actually notified me at all.
  >
  > I guess I have to fiddle with it, I do hope thatnoscript does go out and
  > get released.
  >
  > Today is the 14th in nz and tomorrow it will be 14th in us and so, I am
  > probably going to have to keep firefox 57 loaded though I am tempted to
  > drop back to 56.02 for now and get my sounds back.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >










Re: Quantum browser from a sighted point of view

Christopher-Mark Gilland <clgilland07@...>
 


You know... wow, I have a test system here running Quantom, and just tried it. You're dead right. I have just enough vision to tell that indeed this really is happenning. Groass!
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Felix G.
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] Quantum browser from a sighted point of view

Kind of a calming thought that we're not the only ones having problems. Probably doesn't affect many systems, though, otherwise it'd have been caught in beta.
Kind regards,
Felix

Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io <bglists=blueyonder.co.uk@groups.io> schrieb am Do., 16. Nov. 2017 um 19:02 Uhr:
I found this as just one of the many rants about the new version.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:13:11 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@...>
wrote:

>Mark wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is is just me are all the video clips on the BBC news web-site
>>>> unwatchable due to green and purple blobs all over the video?
>>>
>>> Just you!
>>
>> It seems to only affect the latest version of Firefox (quantum).
>
>That's what I'm running ...

Strange.  I see the problem consistently with FF quantum with all
sites I have tried, including youtube.

I probably described the problem badly.  The colours in the videos are
all replaced with green or purple and there are "shadows" from parts
of the pictures offset on the screen.


Brian
bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.




Re: the new firefox quanttum

Christopher-Mark Gilland <clgilland07@...>
 


I wasn't gonna jump in here, but frankly, I agree, and find Lino's comment to be a bit rude in nature. If it works for you, then help us find a sollution. No one's complaining. We're only making factual statements on what we're seeing.
 
Just for the record, I, too, with NVDA, and! with JFW both tried V57, and couldn't get it working at all, so obviously, Lino, people are! having issues, whehter you care to admit it or not. Enough said, Mucelini boy? Hint hint from 2007?
---
Christopher Gilland
Co-founder of Genuine Safe Haven Ministries
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] the new firefox quanttum

its not working at all end of story. this has to be an issue as more than
one of us find this on 57. I think it may have been you who said some time
ago, do not run betas.

I think certain people on this list need to realise that everybody's view is
valid for them, and not let the argument  go on about this when there are
other more pressing issues like why some people find it works and others do
not. Don't force others to fit your own mould, we are not all the same.
Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lino Morales" <linomorales001@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] the new firefox quanttum


> What damage? I don't understand what you dolts are griping about! Look
> I'm running beta 58 3 and yeah its a bit slow, but not so slow you are
> on the days of dialup. It can be done with NVDA. Now with that other
> screen reader I won't discuss anymore on here well try FF 57 or later at
> your own risk.
>
> On 11/15/2017 3:56 PM, Scott VanDeWalle wrote:
>>
>> Yeah I got it now too and its alright I suppose.
>>
>> I guess now it will be up to the nvda developers to fix the damage
>> that has been done like screen reader manufactrers always seem to have
>> to end up doing. Smile
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>> Windows 10
>>
>> *From: *Chris <mailto:chrismedley@...>
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:16 PM
>> *To: *nvda@nvda.groups.io <mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io>
>> *Subject: *Re: [nvda] the new firefox quanttum
>>
>> Well I’m using nightly 59.01 and that seems ok
>>
>> So maybe try the later one
>>
>> *From: *Scott VanDeWalle <mailto:scottvandewalle2@...>
>> *Sent: *14 November 2017 21:43
>> *To: *nvda@nvda.groups.io <mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io>
>> *Subject: *[nvda] the new firefox quanttum
>>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> I just installed the new firefox.
>>
>> The only thing wrong with it as far as I’m concerned is that it is
>> slower.
>>
>> So for now I’ll either use google chrome or edge as my default browser.
>>
>> I’m using the new nightly firefox 58, and it is not much better, as
>> promised it would be.
>>
>> Just my opinions though.
>>
>> Have a good da y.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>





Re: firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Gene
 

I should add that I tested with the portable version.  I don't know if that is a 64 or 32 bit version or if users have a choice.  I think it's a 32 bit version because I think I transferred an old portable version from a 32 bit machine to a 64 bit machine awhile ago.  I've been updating that version and I suspect that if you start with a 32 bit portable version, you keep updating that version, but I don't know that.
 
Gene

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Regarding working with the new version of Firefox in Windows 7, I'm not interested in evaluating the new version enough to test it on a lot of web pages and in a lot of different tasks such as playing audio. It works here on my Windows 7 machine.  the main problem I found is that, when a page loads, I have to tab when the page should be loaded in order to have whatever needs to happen for the browser or screen-reader or whatever the case, to see anything on the page.  If I tab and wait a number of seconds after the page appears to have loaded, it then works with the screen-reader.  Before that, it appears blank, except that the title bar shows the page that is, or that is being loaded after the passage of a little time since I issue the open command.  I don't know what would happen if I tabbed earlier or much earlier, but I've been waiting until I hear NVDA announce the title bar announcing the title of the new page.  Others may want to experiment with shorter intervals.
 
Gene 
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

I was clarifying my position because I wasn't sure it was stated as clearly as it should have been or if it was being understood as well as it should have been.  And I think despite you evidently disagreeing, that the underlying poingt is worth considering.  Excessive dependence on optional features may lead to problems in certain contexts.  If its your computer, you can set it up as you wish.  If it's a friends computer or a work computer, or a library computer, you may not be able to and excessive dependence can make it harder to do things in various contexts than otherwise.
 
Gene. 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Since you are determined to have an argument about this, would you like a
five minute argument or a longer one we have arguments on offer this week!

Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene" <gsasner@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


There are some sounds that are important because you can't get information
efficiently about something such as a USB connection in other ways.  I may
not have made it as clear as I should have in my first message, but I'm
talking specifically about sounds in contexts such as browser sounds, where
the information can be efficiently gotten in other ways.  There are
advantages and disadvantages in various browsers but making whether sounds
are available in a browser be a very important factor in determining whether
to use that browser is, in my opinion, emphasizing sounds that are optional
to a far more central position than they should be.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: brian
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:07 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


            I think that the reason that some blind people like sounds is it
gives us a indacation of what's going on just like the sighted can see at
glance.  It's like windows sounds.  We have the windows music to let us know
that our computer is on.  We have other windows sounds like the sound we
hear when we plug a thumbdrive in or unplug it.  If we did not hear this
sound we would think that there is a problem but if there was no sound then
how would we know that there was a problem.  Sounds may not be necessary but
they can really help us greatly to know what is happening.  I don't have my
sounds on in my webie brouser but I would not fault somone if they did.  I
do think that it's important to a sound for down loads because if there is a
problem with your internet connection then you would know.  Again the
sighted can just look but we can't.  Alot of people don't have good internet
and it can and does loose connection quite frequently.

Brian Sackrider




On 11/14/2017 9:04 AM, Gene wrote:

  I want to make my position clear and discuss another aspect of the current
situation in this rather long message.

  If people want to use sounds, there is nothing wrong with that but you
don't need them and my position is that being so dependent on them that you
make that a major determining factor on what browser to use is being too
dependent.  That's my position.  I didn't say they are worthless nor that
people shouldn't use them.  I'm talking about being too dependent on one
aspect of a program when that aspect isn't central to the program and when
there may be better programs in general that don't have this specific
characteristic.
  I'm saying that if someone considers sounds in browsers to be so important
that that is a major factor in deciding what browser to use, I consider that
to be too dependent.  There are other efficient ways to tell things when
using a browser.  If a page hasn't loaded, you can't move around.  Tabbing
or down arrowing once or twice will tell you.  I'm not saying, as you said,
that they are pointless.  I'm saying that almost anything sounds do, can be
either efficiently inferred or checked by other methods and that changing
from one browser to another based either only or largely on sounds, is
making this one characteristic of a browser too important.

  I don't want my position to be misunderstood.  If people want to use
sounds, then that's fine;  I'm saying that dependence on them to an
excessive degree is not desirable if it leads to decisions on what programs
to use in a certain class when trying to decide between program a and b that
do roughly the same thing.  Browsers have various advantages and
disadvantages and sound is only one aspect of a program.
  Also, the changes being made in firefox, according to a review I've read,
make it even faster than Chrome.  It isn't much faster, at least now, and I
don't think it matters but if people read the article about these changes
posted last week from Marco's Accessibility blog, these changes may result
in screen-readers being far more capable to work on complex pages that have
embedded programs or where the pages are far more interactive than
traditional web pages, and that increasing numbers of web pages are, and
will be more complex over time.  Therefore, I find the attitude of blaming
Mozilla for what it says it intends to be only a temporary loss of
performance for blind users, and writing as though they are going to
permanently use a different browser without even seeing the results of the
work being done is disturbing.  At the moment, Chrome may be better than
Firefoxs in its latest version because of the changes.  But blind people may
be better served by what Mozilla is doing after the initial inconvenience.

  How often do sighted people complain about things like road construction
and repair, but would they never use the road again because of the temporary
inconvenience?  They may use a different road during the repairs and the
road may even be closed at times, but they return to it when it is in good
order again.

  Gene
  ----- Original Message -----

  From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
  Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
  To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
  Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  Well the beta I tried simply refused to say anything but unknown on any
  page, though most of the menus still worked.

  I'm not inclined to update since I use the sound, particularly the one
when
  a page has fully loaded and the one that tells me a link has in fact
  activated and of course download complete


  I have seen elsewhere where people think these sounds are pointless. I
  dispute this as everyone is different and I really only use browsers where
I
  can actually hear that things are going on. for example I've always
noticed
  that screenreaders sometimes do not figure out the page has loaded, but
  navigational sounds does and hence allows me to re focus the screenreader.
   Also I would not know if a download had completed if the download pane
was
  hidden without a sound.
   Some links click but clickables do not so sometimes you can figure out
what
  is which sort of link on a page this way. In a way it would be even better
  if button link and clickable had different sounds to save one getting
  confused.

  I think the list of things some of us want in a browser is obviously going
  to be different to what the sighted want, so one will really need somebody
  at Mozilla etc to write blind specific add ons for a browser.
   Its far easier when trying to teach somebody how to use a browser to be
  able to say, if you do not hear x then its not worked.
   Brian

  bglists@...
  Sent via blueyonder.
  Please address personal email to:-
  briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
  in the display name field.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@...>
  To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
  Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 6:42 PM
  Subject: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


  > Hi.
  >
  > Well While brousing firefox ftp today I decided to try firefox 57 as it
  > was on releases today.
  >
  > What exactly was the fuss?
  >
  > Firefox interface loads fast, no lag, but I havn't tried big sites maybe
a
  > couple seconds for audiogames forum.
  >
  > Addons, noscript, aparently this will not work till actual release of
  > firefox.
  >
  > Navigational sounds.
  >
  > I am trying to find a replacement, the author of this said that because
  > the new interface doesn't allow for registry access one can't get the
list
  > of events to do things with.
  >
  > I tried 3 of them so far.
  >
  > Notification sound, noise and download sound.
  >
  > Download sound has no options or rather any way I can configure it to
  > suit.
  >
  > Noise has options but there are no default events set and I tried to add
  > what I wanted and define its sounds but I can't set values and going to
  > its website found that while there is a web version all features are
  > basically not there.
  >
  > Notification sound is another, but its got no options screen.
  >
  > Something like noise would be fine if it had an default event list which
  > just used the windows schemes directly to the files etc.
  >
  > I only need web navigation start and end, and download complete as a
  > start.
  >
  > If there was a way I could easily add events, or something that would be
  > good but I'd like a list for beginners I could import.
  >
  > Over those though, I did notice and turn on the extra privacy
protection,
  > I have left active the unwanted software protection but I heard from
some
  > that this can cause problems.
  >
  > I also read the article about accessibility services and how they can be
  > misused.
  >
  > It does say if you have a compatible jaws or nvda active on your system
  > that you should leave this active.
  >
  > This is interesting, dolphin stuff is not on this list it makes me
wander,
  > while I do use dolphin stuff myself for things their web stuff is only
for
  > ie and ie 6-8 mainly.
  >
  > Still its an observation only.
  >
  > I must say off the bat what I really like about firefox are the easy
  > option layouts, I just wish there was a way to extend them to well have
  > extras for addons rather than mucking about with the manager.
  >
  > I do like the fact you can have arrow navigation on.
  >
  > I did get noscript revived but when I hit a site with scripts on it
never
  > actually notified me at all.
  >
  > I guess I have to fiddle with it, I do hope thatnoscript does go out and
  > get released.
  >
  > Today is the 14th in nz and tomorrow it will be 14th in us and so, I am
  > probably going to have to keep firefox 57 loaded though I am tempted to
  > drop back to 56.02 for now and get my sounds back.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >