|
Re: NVDA 2021.1 RC2 available
Rowen Cary
Hi, I suspect there is a major error in RC2. ctypes throws many errors. Many add-ons that are compatible in rc1 are completely unavailable in rc2. The above problem also occurred when updating from alpha-23249 to alpha-23278. In addition, after updating to alpha23278, there will be an error dialog box prompting "Error registering focus winEvent hook". There are many cdll.LoadLibrary errors in the log, But I don't have time to open an Issue now, hoping to attract the attention of others. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Re: NVDA 2021.1 RC2 available
Quentin Christensen
Just to clarify the answer for the original poster - NVDA 2021.1 introduces a few changes such that add-ons which worked when 2020.4 was released won't work with 2021.1. The authors will need to update and re-release them, and in something like 2/3 of add-ons this has already happened. See the link Gene shared: https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/nvdacompat.en.html We anticipate most add-ons should be updated and work by the time the final version comes out in a week or so, and most of the rest not long after that. If you do have any add-ons which are listed as not compatible on that list, it's worth sending the add-on developer an email to check they are working on it. Kind regards Quentin.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 7:13 PM hurrikennyandopo ... <hurrikennyandopo@...> wrote:
--
Quentin Christensen Training and Support Manager Training: https://www.nvaccess.org/shop/ Certification: https://certification.nvaccess.org/ User group: https://nvda.groups.io/g/nvda Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess Twitter: @NVAccess
|
|
|
|
Re: NVDA 2021.1 RC2 available
hurrikennyandopo ...
Hi
If you want to use nvda 2021.1 when it comes out you will need to use add ons that are compatible with this version.
The following page should help you work out which ones are compatible with the newer version nvda 2021.1 If it says they are not then your older add ons will not work on this version. the link to this page is https://addons.nvda-project.org/addons/nvdacompat.en.html
Gene nz
On 5/07/2021 9:05 pm, Ian Blackburn
wrote:
What does it mean when it says that the release candidate breaks support for add-ons
|
|
|
|
Re: NVDA 2021.1 RC2 available
Rowen Cary
I cannot update from rc1 to rc2, and the update went smoothly after I removed the add-ons available in rc1. Has anyone else encountered this situation?
|
|
|
|
Re: NVDA 2021.1 RC2 available
Ian Blackburn
What does it mean when it says that the release candidate breaks support for add-ons
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Can I put the release candidate and then add all my add-ons back on again Or can I not add any add-ons at all
On 5 Jul 2021, at 3:30 pm, Quentin Christensen <quentin@...> wrote:
Hi everyone, Quentin Christensen Training and Support Manager Training: https://www.nvaccess.org/shop/ Certification: https://certification.nvaccess.org/ User group: https://nvda.groups.io/g/nvda Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess Twitter: @NVAccess
|
|
|
|
Re: Status of Remote support addon
Jacob Kruger
Yes, I tweaked the manifest.ini to get it to render as active,
but, it did seem to work when gave it a small test - didn't do
much more than connect to the machine using the remote narwhal
android client to test it, but, it worked. Jacob Kruger Skype: BlindZA "Resistance is futile...but, acceptance is versatile..." "...resistance is futile...but, acceptance is versatile..."
On 2021-07-05 08:34 AM, Robert Mendoza
wrote:
|
|
|
|
NVDA 2021.1 RC2 available
Quentin Christensen
Hi everyone, Quentin Christensen Training and Support Manager Training: https://www.nvaccess.org/shop/ Certification: https://certification.nvaccess.org/ User group: https://nvda.groups.io/g/nvda Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess Twitter: @NVAccess
|
|
|
|
Re: Status of Remote support addon
Robert Mendoza
Pasting the status from the addons Manager for remote support Remote Support; Status: Incompatible; Version: 2.3; Author: Tyler
Spivey <tspivey@...>, Christopher Toth
<q@...>
On 7/4/2021 7:21 PM, Jacob Kruger
wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: cannot check boxes.
Gene
I wonder if these check boxes respond to the keyboard.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Also, I wonder why they are being used. What makes them preferable, if they are to what are now standard check boxes? Gene
On 7/4/2021 8:50 PM, Jackie wrote:
It would be nice if OCR could be taught to recognize these
|
|
|
|
Re: cannot check boxes.
Jackie
It would be nice if OCR could be taught to recognize these
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
checkboxes/radio buttons as such & also their state. Doesn't seem like that should be all that hard w/AI & all that now.
On 7/4/21, Gene <gsasner@...> wrote:
You disagreed with me. I responded and that’s how the discussion began. I --
Subscribe to a WordPress for Newbies Mailing List by sending a message to: wp4newbs-request@... with 'subscribe' in the Subject field OR by visiting the list page at http://www.freelists.org/list/wp4newbs & check out my sites at www.brightstarsweb.com & www.mysitesbeenhacked.com
|
|
|
|
Re: cannot check boxes.
Gene
You disagreed with me. I responded and that’s how the discussion
began. I do ;pay attention and respond to what people say. You said
this in your initial disagreement:
“I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. While I agree it can be annoying
to find one's favorite browser does not "play well" with a given site, or that
one's favorite screen reader does not, that does not mean a site is
inaccessible.”
As I said, there is a difference between accessible and usable. And
you never defined accessible. You criticized my definition as being
abstract. Without a generally accepted and defined definition of
accessibility, there would be no standards for determining when a site is or
isn’t accessible which would pose all sorts of problems.
All I said was that the problem should be called to the attention of the
bank even if a work around is found. I said nothing about people needing
or not needing to use other browsers or screen-readers. I didn’t say
everyone who encounters any site they need to use a work around to access should
complain to the site. Nor am I saying that a site has to work properly
with every possible combination of programs. But a site like this, a
banking site, should be generally accessible.
Gene
-----Original Message-----
On
Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 08:03 PM, Gene wrote: I’m saying that, in a case like this, where a major site is not usable by a widely used screen-reader and browser or class of browsers, that site is not accessible.- And I have said nothing that contradicts that in regard to this specific site from the outset. For the love of heaven, Gene, please read, and respond to, what I have actually written, with the entire context of an ongoing conversation being used as the framework. I don't make additions to a topic like this that are each meant to stand, independently, of all others. My very first response was to take this up with customer support since the only change had been to the website. The screen reader and browser were the same as have been used with their site's prior iteration. My second was advising the offering of the specific institution in question, as it's really impossible to know whether anyone else may have found an accessibility method that you (the generic you) didn't, somehow. Talking about issues like this in the abstract is as close to a complete waste of time as one can get. I could say, I can't access the subscription management page for my local newspaper, and it would be entirely useless to discuss unless I could give the exact URL, or say something like it's a Gannett paper and uses their subscription system (as there are hundreds of papers owned and run under the Gannett name and software). I understand the abstract concepts regarding accessibility. They're just of little use when discussing a specific situation and whether anyone may, or may not, have discovered a workaround. Talking about issues with accessibility without specifics makes trying to find a solution akin to trying to nail jello to a tree. -- Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043 I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions. The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are. ~ Brian Vogel
|
|
|
|
Re: cannot check boxes.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 08:14 PM, Jackie wrote:
The problem is that sometimes employers don't allow installation of- Jackie, I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt as far as jumping in as an advocate in this sort of situation. An employer can legitimately decline to diverge from their IT department's set configuration provided they don't expect you to do the thing that standard configuration precludes. But, if it's a part of your job function, if they try to take it away from you (and have not from others who are sighted) then one can, and should, complain loudly about workplace discrimination. But, the above being said, I really have found that the squeaky wheel gets the grease provided it isn't a wildly disruptive squeaky wheel. I can't say that it's easy, because it's not, but it's far from impossible to get waivers with regard to technology that falls under the umbrella of reasonable accommodations. And if you don't fight for it, it's definitely not going to happen. One of the most miserable things about being "out of the mainstream" in virtually any way, blindness specifically here, is that you are constantly called upon to be an advocate for yourself not because people are malicious, but because they're entirely ignorant. It's something you just can't get away from, and if you don't or won't do it, no one else is going to because they don't have a clue. -- Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043 I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions. The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are. ~ Brian Vogel
|
|
|
|
Re: cannot check boxes.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 08:03 PM, Gene wrote:
I’m saying that, in a case like this, where a major site is not usable by a widely used screen-reader and browser or class of browsers, that site is not accessible.- And I have said nothing that contradicts that in regard to this specific site from the outset. For the love of heaven, Gene, please read, and respond to, what I have actually written, with the entire context of an ongoing conversation being used as the framework. I don't make additions to a topic like this that are each meant to stand, independently, of all others. My very first response was to take this up with customer support since the only change had been to the website. The screen reader and browser were the same as have been used with their site's prior iteration. My second was advising the offering of the specific institution in question, as it's really impossible to know whether anyone else may have found an accessibility method that you (the generic you) didn't, somehow. Talking about issues like this in the abstract is as close to a complete waste of time as one can get. I could say, I can't access the subscription management page for my local newspaper, and it would be entirely useless to discuss unless I could give the exact URL, or say something like it's a Gannett paper and uses their subscription system (as there are hundreds of papers owned and run under the Gannett name and software). I understand the abstract concepts regarding accessibility. They're just of little use when discussing a specific situation and whether anyone may, or may not, have discovered a workaround. Talking about issues with accessibility without specifics makes trying to find a solution akin to trying to nail jello to a tree. -- Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043 I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions. The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are. ~ Brian Vogel
|
|
|
|
Re: cannot check boxes.
Hi Monte,
You could capture a debug log as you work through the page and share that privately with nvaccess and get their help in interpreting the log.
That way, you may get closer to a resolution. Pranav
From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Monte Single
Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 2:05 AM To: nvda@nvda.groups.io Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.
Hi, Brian, Oh yes, I had a lengthy session with customer service with no joy and requested that the problem be forwarded to my branch manager and the IT person.
Thought someone on the list might have some kind of keystroke combo suggestion.
Still dancing in the dark,
Monte
From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brian Vogel
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 04:16 PM, Monte Single wrote:
- Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043 I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions. The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are. ~ Brian Vogel
|
|
|
|
Re: cannot check boxes.
Jackie
The problem is that sometimes employers don't allow installation of
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
anything but their permitted apps, & if that combination doesn't work, then the person involved is screwed, to use the polite & edited version. A lot of web developers seem to be going to these graphical checkboxes--they look in every way like checkboxes to the sighted person, but not at all like them to a screen reader. That applies to radio buttons as well. It seems like that, in Chrome browsers, when image descriptions are turned on, the browser tries to get an image description when the box is checked, because it thinks it sees a graphic, whereas it just says nothing when it isn't. I havent tested this out enough yet to be entirely sure of this, but I'll be working on it more throughout the coming days, as I'm facing these a lot.
On 7/4/21, Gene <gsasner@...> wrote:
I’m not disagreeing that people need to know how to use more than one --
Subscribe to a WordPress for Newbies Mailing List by sending a message to: wp4newbs-request@... with 'subscribe' in the Subject field OR by visiting the list page at http://www.freelists.org/list/wp4newbs & check out my sites at www.brightstarsweb.com & www.mysitesbeenhacked.com
|
|
|
|
Re: cannot check boxes.
Gene
I’m not disagreeing that people need to know how to use more than one
browser and screen-reader for such situations. It isn’t difficult to know
other browsers or screen-readers to the extent necessary for that purpose.
I’m saying that, in a case like this, where a major site is not usable by a
widely used screen-reader and browser or class of browsers, that site is not
accessible. I’m not talking about some minor function, I’m talking about
not usable for one or more major functions.
If you have a different definition of accessible than the recognized one,
that’s a different question. but if Amazon argued that its site is
accessible because it works with Firefox and JAWS even if it doesn’t work with
NVDA and Chrome-based browsers that isn’t accessibility. It can be used
but it isn’t properly accessible.
Gene
-----Original Message-----
On
Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 07:24 PM, Gene wrote: But the definition of accessible is not stated in such a way that a site that works with Firefox and not with chrome-based browsers would be considered accessible.- But the reality is that some sites do, or do not, play well with a given class of browser. And just because they don't play well with one does not make them inaccessible in any meaningful way. I don't give a damn about what the abstract definition of accessible might be. I understand that in real life even software that has been developed with virtually any accessibility standard you can think of in mind will rarely hit a snag under specific circumstances, and those are, while not exactly common, not uncommon in regard to websites and web browsers. This isn't about the semantics of accessibility on my side, but practical considerations based on real world experiences. The definition of accessibility seems to be what you've been and continue to be focused on. -- Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043 I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions. The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are. ~ Brian Vogel
|
|
|
|
Re: cannot check boxes.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 07:24 PM, Gene wrote:
But the definition of accessible is not stated in such a way that a site that works with Firefox and not with chrome-based browsers would be considered accessible.- But the reality is that some sites do, or do not, play well with a given class of browser. And just because they don't play well with one does not make them inaccessible in any meaningful way. I don't give a damn about what the abstract definition of accessible might be. I understand that in real life even software that has been developed with virtually any accessibility standard you can think of in mind will rarely hit a snag under specific circumstances, and those are, while not exactly common, not uncommon in regard to websites and web browsers. This isn't about the semantics of accessibility on my side, but practical considerations based on real world experiences. The definition of accessibility seems to be what you've been and continue to be focused on. -- Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043 I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions. The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are. ~ Brian Vogel
|
|
|
|
Re: cannot check boxes.
Gene
Brave is a special case and I have found occasions when something doesn’t
work because of Brave security settings. But that isn’t an accessibility
issue. That is a Brave issue. It may be a necessary inconvenience because
of what Brave does.
The definition of accessibility states ways in which sites should function,
for example, there is a statement something like that controls should work from
the keyboard. If Chrome-based browsers don’t work properly on a site, that
is a whole class of browsers. I understand the reality of needing to use
different browsers and/or screen-readers on some sites, and I’m not saying every
site that has this or that problem should be reported or made a major issue
of. But the definition of accessible is not stated in such a way that a
site that works with Firefox and not with chrome-based browsers would be
considered accessible.
Gene
-----Original Message-----
On
Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 06:21 PM, Gene wrote: If it works with one browser and/or screen-reader and not with another combination of well recognized standard programs, it isn’t accessible, its usable under certain conditions which isn’t the same thing..- I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. While I agree it can be annoying to find one's favorite browser does not "play well" with a given site, or that one's favorite screen reader does not, that does not mean a site is inaccessible. Issues with interactions, which are hopefully (and, in actuality, in my experience are) rare, between a specific screen reader and a specific browser with a specific website are simply something that happens. That's why everyone, including the sighted, needs to be willing and able to try a different browser with specific sites. I have to do this all the time since Brave, with it's stringent privacy focus, does not play well with certain websites (including, but not limited to, the New York Times). Occasional interaction issues are a fact of life and, because they are, you need to be ready to try other screen readers and browsers when necessary. I'd still report the issue, that's for sure, but very often what you're going to hear, whether sighted or blind, is to try it with another browser. I got precisely that response from the New York Times with regard to a recent trouble ticket I filed. And since it works with the browser they recommended, plus several others, it would be unreasonable of me to believe they should feel any pressing need to make changes so that my preferred browser works. -- Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043 I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions. The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are. ~ Brian Vogel
|
|
|
|
Re: cannot check boxes.
Gene
I’m discussing times when I want to move the mouse to the place I want to
click. With mouse tracking on, the default NVDA setting, I hear nothing
announced when I move the virtual mouse, using numpad insert numpad slash. That
indicates that the mouse didn’t move. Also, a left click either does
nothing or moves focus outside of the browser window indicating that the mouse
isn’t even in it.
I see this on a lot of web pages. I haven’t used JAWS for years but
my recollection is that the same problem exists there.
If I am drawing the right conclusion from my experience and your comments,
it would seem that a physical mouse may allow me to move to where I want, though
I wonder how cumbersome that would be.
Gene
-----Original Message-----
On
Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 05:18 PM, Jackie wrote: a move mouse to navigator object, & then a left mouse click.- Just curious if you mean a literal left mouse click or a screen-reader emulated left mouse click? The reason I ask is a way of addressing Gene's questions, but indirectly. It has been my observation, regardless of the screen reader involved, that emulated mouse clicks are not anywhere near to reliable. I can't count the number of times over the years where a route mouse to navigator object has been issued, focus has changed (I most often have some sort of focus highlight on if I'm working with a screen reader, even when with a client, because movement in the virtual cursor very often "does not track" with where I'd expect to be next gaining focus), but the emulated click does nothing. Most often a literal left click from the mousepad or mouse itself will. This is the main reason I keep saying that there is very good reason to either mask the thumbpad that lets you move the mouse on a laptop, or tape over the tracking laser on an optical mouse, so that you have access to a real left and right click. It sometimes makes the difference between success and failure in activating certain controls. And, no, I have yet to decipher any sort of pattern that would indicate which will or won't work with a screen reader emulated mouse click. -- Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043 I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions. The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are. ~ Brian Vogel
|
|
|
|
Re: cannot check boxes.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 06:45 PM, Monte Single wrote:
It is definitely something on their website that has changed.- Which has been what I believed to be the root cause from the outset. The "improved" version very simply isn't. To me, even as a sighted individual, a major regression that breaks accessibility is something that should not have made it out and "into the wild." Someone's testing protocol is lacking. -- Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043 I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions. The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are. ~ Brian Vogel
|
|
|