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.


 

hello.
protection against unwanted softwares, does not cause any problem, at
least for me!
God bless you.

On 11/13/17, Shaun Everiss <sm.everiss@...> wrote:
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.





--
we have not sent you but as a mercy to the entire creation.
holy quran, chapter 21, verse 107.
in the very authentic narration from prophet Mohammad is:
indeed, imam husayn is the beacon of guidance and the ark of salvation.
best website for studying islamic book in different languages
www.al-islam.org


 

Thats good to know.

I have yet to get notification sounds to work or a satisfactory noscript to actually work though.

There are a lot of unknown arieas in the addons manager which means I am probably missing some options screens.

As I don't have any downloads to do as such I may try to use ff 57 today with the downloads addon for simple download, and see if I can get that working else I will have to downgrade to 56.02.

At this point, though I am seriously thinking of switching to chrome going forward

Waterfox is an option, but to be honest, if that upgrades who knows.

On 14/11/2017 7:49 a.m., zahra wrote:
hello.
protection against unwanted softwares, does not cause any problem, at
least for me!
God bless you.

On 11/13/17, Shaun Everiss <sm.everiss@...> wrote:
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.






Brian's Mail list account
 

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.




Brian's Mail list account
 

You will need to remove and reload them as with other add ons. I did but as I said despite not changing anything windows 7 seemed to just stop me from accessing anything on the web page at all.


Has anyone else tried this? If there is a portable version of 57 that would be good after all if its banning registry entry, it could in effect use a compact registry of its own in portable mode.
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.




Brian's Mail list account
 

The one to untick on normal firefox is the one that stops software being downloaded that firefoxthinks is not usually downloaded which seemms to be most things most of the time.
Brian issue is that it

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "zahra" <nasrinkhaksar3@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


hello.
protection against unwanted softwares, does not cause any problem, at
least for me!
God bless you.

On 11/13/17, Shaun Everiss <sm.everiss@...> wrote:
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.






--
we have not sent you but as a mercy to the entire creation.
holy quran, chapter 21, verse 107.
in the very authentic narration from prophet Mohammad is:
indeed, imam husayn is the beacon of guidance and the ark of salvation.
best website for studying islamic book in different languages
www.al-islam.org


Gene
 

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 -----

Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
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.
>
>
>
>
>




Kwork
 


Well said, Gene, and something that could be applied to other areas of life that would become off topic here.
Do I use Firefox with the navigational sounds extension? Yes.
Would I miss it if it truly became out of date? Yes.
Would I hope it would come back? Yes.
If not, would I see if another one existed? Yes.
Would I cry about it and go boo hoo? No.
Would I quit using Firefox if I couldn't find a replacement, or a working alternative? No.
For me, the navigational sounds are a convenience, not a necessity. After all, I do use Chrome on occasion, and have not found a sounds extention, nor have I really searched that hard as my Chrome usage pales next to my Firefox usage, and I wouldn't die if I didn't find one.
Travis

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

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 -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
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.
>
>
>
>
>




Brian's Mail list account
 

I disagree, but am not going to start a war. Each person has their ways of working and their reasons, we should respect this and not castigate those who do not share our views.
Brian

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kwork" <istherelife@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Well said, Gene, and something that could be applied to other areas of life that would become off topic here.
Do I use Firefox with the navigational sounds extension? Yes.
Would I miss it if it truly became out of date? Yes.
Would I hope it would come back? Yes.
If not, would I see if another one existed? Yes.
Would I cry about it and go boo hoo? No.
Would I quit using Firefox if I couldn't find a replacement, or a working alternative? No.
For me, the navigational sounds are a convenience, not a necessity. After all, I do use Chrome on occasion, and have not found a sounds extention, nor have I really searched that hard as my Chrome usage pales next to my Firefox usage, and I wouldn't die if I didn't find one.
Travis
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


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.





 

Well for security reasons you may have to but to be honest, I agree, the new firefox engine secure as it is means a lot of stuff we are used to is gone and a few more niggles.

I'd actually prefur if they just kept 56.x secured as it is.

Chrome was the quickest way for me to stay secure and in business.

However if I didn't care firefox 56 would have been what I do.

Ofcause if I could fine a way without doodling with complex addons to make my ff 52 broadcast a firefox 56 or higher on some sites then I'd have no issue with it.

I still prefur firefox to chrome for its ease of use but they are going to make it newer so.

To be honest if mozilla do what they say they are doing I do hope something comes up next year, if firefox gets better then maybe I switch back to firefox.

On 14/11/2017 10:11 p.m., Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
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.






.


Gene
 

It isn't just a question of security and I don't know enough about the technical aspects of security to comment on that regarding screen-readers. 
But the statement from Mozilla, reproduced in Marco's Accessibility Blog, makes it clear that many changes are to deal efficiently with web pages that are increasingly interactive and complex.  An important reason changes are being made regarding accessibility is because of the changes in web page design that have and are occurring as the Internet takes on more complex functions.  Indeed, it looks to me as though Chrome will have to do the same sorts of things at some point and that one reason Edge was inaccessible after its release is because these sorts of changes are already built into the browser, although someone who knows more than my very slight bit of reading on the subject I did may correct or modify what I'm saying. 
 
Gene

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?

Well for security reasons you may have to but to be honest, I agree, the
new firefox engine secure as it is means a lot of stuff we are used to
is gone and a few more niggles.

I'd actually prefur if they just kept 56.x secured as it is.

Chrome was the quickest way for me to stay secure and in business.

However if I didn't care firefox 56 would have been what I do.

Ofcause if I could fine a way without doodling with complex addons to
make my ff 52 broadcast a firefox 56 or higher on some sites then I'd
have no issue with it.

I still prefur firefox to chrome for its ease of use but they are going
to make it newer so.

To be honest if mozilla do what they say they are doing I do hope
something comes up next year, if firefox gets better then maybe I switch
back to firefox.




On 14/11/2017 10:11 p.m., Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> .
>




brian <sackriderbrian45@...>
 

            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 -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
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.
>
>
>
>
>





 

Well if it comes to that, then as a blind person I will have to use an unsecured brouser.

Firefox 56 with noscript can be secure enough its a pitty that it will be not secure but well.

Lets hope that both makers and access tech upgrades to the new technologies and can use them.

Chrome is allready using web extentions the only issue I have with chrome are some dialogs for their security screens.

I also don't care for the multiple clickables meaning I have to just not do anything about that.

On 15/11/2017 7:19 a.m., Gene wrote:
It isn't just a question of security and I don't know enough about the technical aspects of security to comment on that regarding screen-readers.

But the statement from Mozilla, reproduced in Marco's Accessibility Blog, makes it clear that many changes are to deal efficiently with web pages that are increasingly interactive and complex. An important reason changes are being made regarding accessibility is because of the changes in web page design that have and are occurring as the Internet takes on more complex functions. Indeed, it looks to me as though Chrome will have to do the same sorts of things at some point and that one reason Edge was inaccessible after its release is because these sorts of changes are already built into the browser, although someone who knows more than my very slight bit of reading on the subject I did may correct or modify what I'm saying.

Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Shaun Everiss
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:01 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Well for security reasons you may have to but to be honest, I agree, the
new firefox engine secure as it is means a lot of stuff we are used to
is gone and a few more niggles.

I'd actually prefur if they just kept 56.x secured as it is.

Chrome was the quickest way for me to stay secure and in business.

However if I didn't care firefox 56 would have been what I do.

Ofcause if I could fine a way without doodling with complex addons to
make my ff 52 broadcast a firefox 56 or higher on some sites then I'd
have no issue with it.

I still prefur firefox to chrome for its ease of use but they are going
to make it newer so.

To be honest if mozilla do what they say they are doing I do hope
something comes up next year, if firefox gets better then maybe I switch
back to firefox.




On 14/11/2017 10:11 p.m., Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
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.






.


Gene
 

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
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 -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:11 AM
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.
>
>
>
>
>





 

On 11/14/17, Gene <gsasner@...> wrote:
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.
>
>
>
>
>







Brian's Mail list account
 

Its no less secure today than yesterday. There are people out there who will find a way to hack into everything. The game everyone is playing to try to close every conceivable loop hole or way to exploit windows and other systems will carry on no matter what of course.
Unfortunately if correct checks ad balances were carried out in the code to see if it really is a screenreader then why worry? In my view some of the dirty ways screenreaders have to use to get proper access to the data point toward those designing APIs for screenreader use as poor at their job. No hooking in and fiddling should be needed if they knew what we needed access to in a secure way.Sadly the world does not revolve around minority users and so we get the last dregs of the cup of tea. Protecting idiots from their own bad practices is more important. users need to actually learn to be more careful and stop trying to pretend the world on line is more safe than off. There are some areas of town I'd not go after dark, and I do not expect a line of police there to stop me being foolish enough to do it.
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: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Well if it comes to that, then as a blind person I will have to use an unsecured brouser.

Firefox 56 with noscript can be secure enough its a pitty that it will be not secure but well.

Lets hope that both makers and access tech upgrades to the new technologies and can use them.

Chrome is allready using web extentions the only issue I have with chrome are some dialogs for their security screens.

I also don't care for the multiple clickables meaning I have to just not do anything about that.




On 15/11/2017 7:19 a.m., Gene wrote:
It isn't just a question of security and I don't know enough about the technical aspects of security to comment on that regarding screen-readers.

But the statement from Mozilla, reproduced in Marco's Accessibility Blog, makes it clear that many changes are to deal efficiently with web pages that are increasingly interactive and complex. An important reason changes are being made regarding accessibility is because of the changes in web page design that have and are occurring as the Internet takes on more complex functions. Indeed, it looks to me as though Chrome will have to do the same sorts of things at some point and that one reason Edge was inaccessible after its release is because these sorts of changes are already built into the browser, although someone who knows more than my very slight bit of reading on the subject I did may correct or modify what I'm saying.

Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Shaun Everiss
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:01 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Well for security reasons you may have to but to be honest, I agree, the
new firefox engine secure as it is means a lot of stuff we are used to
is gone and a few more niggles.

I'd actually prefur if they just kept 56.x secured as it is.

Chrome was the quickest way for me to stay secure and in business.

However if I didn't care firefox 56 would have been what I do.

Ofcause if I could fine a way without doodling with complex addons to
make my ff 52 broadcast a firefox 56 or higher on some sites then I'd
have no issue with it.

I still prefur firefox to chrome for its ease of use but they are going
to make it newer so.

To be honest if mozilla do what they say they are doing I do hope
something comes up next year, if firefox gets better then maybe I switch
back to firefox.




On 14/11/2017 10:11 p.m., Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
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.






.



Brian's Mail list account
 

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.
>
>
>
>
>


Gene
 

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.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >










 

I agree, the world online is as dangerous as the world offline.

The only difference is it never closes, and its always day, never sleeps.

Then again as it is in the real world even in parts of the globe where people do sleep at night, and yes in europe there are places where people are always up, even in places where people do regularly sleep someone is always up, and in some cases normal people are still up at nights.

For me bar resilio sync server, firefox has been as fast as it ever was.

And the layout of some pages is nicer than chrome.

I have gotten used to a download sound addon I use and don't need anything else.

So the biggest gripe for me is that forms in addon options do not work I also find the options page a bit slow to navigate and do anything in.

But as long as I don't have to adjust settings of any sort then its not going to be an issue.

On 15/11/2017 9:03 p.m., Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
Its no less secure today than yesterday. There are people out there who will find a way to hack into everything. The game everyone is playing to try to close every conceivable loop hole or way to exploit windows and other systems  will carry on no matter what of course.
Unfortunately if correct checks ad balances were carried out in the code to see if it really is a screenreader then why worry? In my view some of the dirty ways screenreaders have to use to get proper access to the data point toward those designing APIs for screenreader use as poor at their job. No hooking in and fiddling should be needed if they knew what we needed access to in a secure way.Sadly the world does not revolve around minority users and so we get the  last dregs of the cup of tea. Protecting idiots from their own bad practices is more important. users need to actually learn to be more careful and stop trying to pretend the world on line is more safe than off. There are some areas of town I'd not go after dark, and I do not expect a line of police there to stop me being foolish enough to do it.
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: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Well if it comes to that, then as a blind person I will have to use an unsecured brouser.

Firefox 56 with noscript can be secure enough its a pitty that it will be not secure but well.

Lets hope that both makers and access tech upgrades to the new technologies and can use them.

Chrome is allready using web extentions the only issue I have with chrome are some dialogs for their security screens.

I also don't care for the multiple clickables meaning I have to just not do anything about that.




On 15/11/2017 7:19 a.m., Gene wrote:
It isn't just a question of security and I don't know enough about the technical aspects of security to comment on that regarding screen-readers.

But the statement from Mozilla, reproduced in Marco's Accessibility Blog, makes it clear that many changes are to deal efficiently with web pages that are increasingly interactive and complex.  An important reason changes are being made regarding accessibility is because of the changes in web page design that have and are occurring as the Internet takes on more complex functions.  Indeed, it looks to me as though Chrome will have to do the same sorts of things at some point and that one reason Edge was inaccessible after its release is because these sorts of changes are already built into the browser, although someone who knows more than my very slight bit of reading on the subject I did may correct or modify what I'm saying.

Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Shaun Everiss
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:01 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Well for security reasons you may have to but to be honest, I agree, the
new firefox engine secure as it is means a lot of stuff we are used to
is gone and a few more niggles.

I'd actually prefur if they just kept 56.x secured as it is.

Chrome was the quickest way for me to stay secure and in business.

However if I didn't care firefox 56 would have been what I do.

Ofcause if I could fine a way without doodling with complex addons to
make my ff 52 broadcast a firefox 56 or higher on some sites then I'd
have no issue with it.

I still prefur firefox to chrome for its ease of use but they are going
to make it newer so.

To be honest if mozilla do what they say they are doing I do hope
something comes up next year, if firefox gets better then maybe I switch
back to firefox.




On 14/11/2017 10:11 p.m., Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
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.






.





.


John Isige
 

Dude, don't take this the wrong way, but maybe you might find out what
you're talking about first? You opine that if browser makers knew what
we needed access to, they could give us that, and then screen readers
wouldn't have to do this unsecure stuff. Yeah, I agree with that, and so
do the folks at Mozilla. Here's somebody claiming screen readers should
do exactly what you said they should, again, since you apparently didn't
read it the first time.


https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/


That's literally exactly what you just said, the browser gives the
screen reader the information it needs. Do you think such a change will
happen instantaneously or something? You then further opine about
protecting idiots from "their own bad practices". Sure, it's possible
that somebody could do the classic click on a link from an email and
suffer a code injection attack. But the more problematic thing has
nothing whatsoever to do with anybody's "bad practices".


It goes like this. I think to myself, "self, let's go check the news".
So I fire up my trusty browser and go to CNN or the BBC or wherever the
hell people go for news these days. Oh look! Suddenly my browser's
freaking out and I just had financial information stolen from my system.
Surely I was the idiot for going to the CNN, right? Nope, because that
site got hacked, I had no way of knowing that, and I got hit with a code
injection attack. That's precisely the sort of thing the new Firefox is
trying to have better security against.


By your reasoning, I should turn off any antivirus programs I'm running
and go to any website I please, however bad it might look, because
you're never going to have perfect security, so why even bother? I get
that it's really frustrating that the new Firefox doesn't work for you,
I really do. But that doesn't change the fact that A., Firefox is more
secure, and B., they're literally trying to do exactly what you said
they should do in terms of accessibility, figure out what a screen
reader needs and giving it access to that information. I mean like they
are literally saying "we know this might break some things for a bit,
but we really are trying to get to better security and better
accessibility in the end, so please be patient with us".


And you literally agree with what they're intending to do when it comes
to providing accessibility, because you said it's what they should have
been doing in the first place. So why in the world are you doing nothing
but complaining, now that they're saying they have the stuff they need
to create this better form of accessibility, and they're starting to do
so? Because again, BOTH major screen readers warned everybody in advance
and gave an accessible version of the exact same browser to use. Plus as
people on this list have mentioned and experimented with, we've got two
other largely accessible browsers at our immediate disposal.


They're literally trying to make the changes you claim they should make,
and all you've been doing for the last two or three weeks is complaining
about it. They are actually trying to do the thing you think is better
for us, and all you've been doing is pissing and moaning about how we're
second class citizens and nobody cares about us poor poor blind folks!
And yes, I know I'm running this into the ground, but it's for a reason.
This is something that, however immediately painful, and it shouldn't be
that painful because you have browser choices, is something that's
intended to make the browser better for everybody, and yes that includes
us. Not only are they saying there's now a better way to do
accessibility and we're going to do that, you agree with them and think
it's the way they should have been using all along.


They couldn't, and now they can, so that's what they want to do, and it
will be, again, better for everybody. I mean it is literally the exact
opposite of treating us as second class citizens, it's saying we have a
technology we didn't have, it's better for you, give us some time to
implement it. The whole point is that we'll get improved accessibility.
How in the world is that giving us "the last dregs of the cup of tea"?


I'm sorry if this comes off like I'm picking on you or attacking you,
I'm honestly not trying to do that. I'm just honestly baffled. We've had
the reasons in front of us for about the past month about how this will
improve both accessibility and security, that's the end-game they're
trying to reach. So I just do not comprehend the whole "everybody hates
us and ignores us and we're second class citizens and I guess we're
lucky to have anything at all no no squire a stale crust of bread will
be fine for my single daily meal!" vibe you've got going on here. Had
the security change been made and then we had no mention of
accessibility whatsoever, I'd kind of see your point I guess. But that's
just not what happened at all. It looks to me like this was prepared for
in advance, hence the posts about Firefox ESR, and that the intent is to
offer a stronger path for accessibility going forward, now that the
technology has changed to allow it.

On 11/15/2017 2:03, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
Its no less secure today than yesterday. There are people out there
who will find a way to hack into everything. The game everyone is
playing to try to close every conceivable loop hole or way to exploit
windows and other systems  will carry on no matter what of course.
Unfortunately if correct checks ad balances were carried out in the
code to see if it really is a screenreader then why worry? In my view
some of the dirty ways screenreaders have to use to get proper access
to the data point toward those designing APIs for screenreader use as
poor at their job. No hooking in and fiddling should be needed if they
knew what we needed access to in a secure way.Sadly the world does not
revolve around minority users and so we get the  last dregs of the cup
of tea. Protecting idiots from their own bad practices is more
important. users need to actually learn to be more careful and stop
trying to pretend the world on line is more safe than off. There are
some areas of town I'd not go after dark, and I do not expect a line
of police there to stop me being foolish enough to do it.
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: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Well if it comes to that, then as a blind person I will have to use
an unsecured brouser.

Firefox 56 with noscript can be secure enough its a pitty that it
will be not secure but well.

Lets hope that both makers and access tech upgrades to the new
technologies and can use them.

Chrome is allready using web extentions the only issue I have with
chrome are some dialogs for their security screens.

I also don't care for the multiple clickables meaning I have to just
not do anything about that.




On 15/11/2017 7:19 a.m., Gene wrote:
It isn't just a question of security and I don't know enough about
the technical aspects of security to comment on that regarding
screen-readers.

But the statement from Mozilla, reproduced in Marco's Accessibility
Blog, makes it clear that many changes are to deal efficiently with
web pages that are increasingly interactive and complex.  An
important reason changes are being made regarding accessibility is
because of the changes in web page design that have and are
occurring as the Internet takes on more complex functions.  Indeed,
it looks to me as though Chrome will have to do the same sorts of
things at some point and that one reason Edge was inaccessible after
its release is because these sorts of changes are already built into
the browser, although someone who knows more than my very slight bit
of reading on the subject I did may correct or modify what I'm saying.

Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Shaun Everiss
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:01 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Well for security reasons you may have to but to be honest, I agree,
the
new firefox engine secure as it is means a lot of stuff we are used to
is gone and a few more niggles.

I'd actually prefur if they just kept 56.x secured as it is.

Chrome was the quickest way for me to stay secure and in business.

However if I didn't care firefox 56 would have been what I do.

Ofcause if I could fine a way without doodling with complex addons to
make my ff 52 broadcast a firefox 56 or higher on some sites then I'd
have no issue with it.

I still prefur firefox to chrome for its ease of use but they are going
to make it newer so.

To be honest if mozilla do what they say they are doing I do hope
something comes up next year, if firefox gets better then maybe I
switch
back to firefox.




On 14/11/2017 10:11 p.m., Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
wrote:
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.






.