cannot check boxes.


Pranav Lal
 

Hi Monte,

 

You could capture a debug log as you work through the page and share that privately with nvaccess and get their help in interpreting the log.

 

That way, you may get closer to a resolution.

Pranav

 

From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Monte Single
Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 2:05 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.

 

Hi, Brian,

Oh yes,  I had a lengthy session with customer service  with no joy and requested that the problem be forwarded to my branch manager and the IT person.

 

Thought  someone on the list might have some kind of keystroke combo  suggestion.

 

Still dancing in the dark,

 

Monte

 

From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brian Vogel
Sent: July 4, 2021 2:18 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.

 

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 04:16 PM, Monte Single wrote:

Recently, my  credit union  made some changes to the online banking experience.

-
Contact customer service and report this.  If you haven't changed NVDA, or Windows, and this is now occurring immediately after those changes then suspect the changes.
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043  

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.  The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body.  What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are.

      ~ Brian Vogel

 


 

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 08:03 PM, Gene wrote:
I’m saying that, in a case like this, where a major site is not usable by a widely used screen-reader and browser or class of browsers, that site is not accessible.
-
And I have said nothing that contradicts that in regard to this specific site from the outset.

For the love of heaven, Gene, please read, and respond to, what I have actually written, with the entire context of an ongoing conversation being used as the framework.  I don't make additions to a topic like this that are each meant to stand, independently, of all others.

My very first response was to take this up with customer support since the only change had been to the website.  The screen reader and browser were the same as have been used with their site's prior iteration.

My second was advising the offering of the specific institution in question, as it's really impossible to know whether anyone else may have found an accessibility method that you (the generic you) didn't, somehow.

Talking about issues like this in the abstract is as close to a complete waste of time as one can get.  I could say, I can't access the subscription management page for my local newspaper, and it would be entirely useless to discuss unless I could give the exact URL, or say something like it's a Gannett paper and uses their subscription system (as there are hundreds of papers owned and run under the Gannett name and software).

I understand the abstract concepts regarding accessibility.  They're just of little use when discussing a specific situation and whether anyone may, or may not, have discovered a workaround.  Talking about issues with accessibility without specifics makes trying to find a solution akin to trying to nail jello to a tree.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043  

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.  The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body.  What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are.

      ~ Brian Vogel

 


 

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 08:14 PM, Jackie wrote:
The problem is that sometimes employers don't allow installation of
anything but their permitted apps, & if that combination doesn't work,
then the person involved is screwed, to use the polite & edited
version.

Jackie, I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt as far as jumping in as an advocate in this sort of situation.

An employer can legitimately decline to diverge from their IT department's set configuration provided they don't expect you to do the thing that standard configuration precludes.  But, if it's a part of your job function, if they try to take it away from you (and have not from others who are sighted) then one can, and should, complain loudly about workplace discrimination.  

But, the above being said, I really have found that the squeaky wheel gets the grease provided it isn't a wildly disruptive squeaky wheel.  I can't say that it's easy, because it's not, but it's far from impossible to get waivers with regard to technology that falls under the umbrella of reasonable accommodations.  And if you don't fight for it, it's definitely not going to happen.

One of the most miserable things about being "out of the mainstream" in virtually any way, blindness specifically here, is that you are constantly called upon to be an advocate for yourself not because people are malicious, but because they're entirely ignorant.  It's something you just can't get away from, and if you don't or won't do it, no one else is going to because they don't have a clue.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043  

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.  The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body.  What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are.

      ~ Brian Vogel

 


Gene
 

You disagreed with me.  I responded and that’s how the discussion began.  I do ;pay attention and respond to what people say.  You said this in your initial disagreement:
“I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.  While I agree it can be annoying to find one's favorite browser does not "play well" with a given site, or that one's favorite screen reader does not, that does not mean a site is inaccessible.” 
 
As I said, there is a difference between accessible and usable.  And you never defined accessible.  You criticized my definition as being abstract.  Without a generally accepted and defined definition of accessibility, there would be no standards for determining when a site is or isn’t accessible which would pose all sorts of problems. 
 
All I said was that the problem should be called to the attention of the bank even if a work around is found.  I said nothing about people needing or not needing to use other browsers or screen-readers.  I didn’t say everyone who encounters any site they need to use a work around to access should complain to the site.  Nor am I saying that a site has to work properly with every possible combination of programs.  But a site like this, a banking site, should be generally accessible. 
 
Gene

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.
 
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 08:03 PM, Gene wrote:
I’m saying that, in a case like this, where a major site is not usable by a widely used screen-reader and browser or class of browsers, that site is not accessible.
-
And I have said nothing that contradicts that in regard to this specific site from the outset.

For the love of heaven, Gene, please read, and respond to, what I have actually written, with the entire context of an ongoing conversation being used as the framework.  I don't make additions to a topic like this that are each meant to stand, independently, of all others.

My very first response was to take this up with customer support since the only change had been to the website.  The screen reader and browser were the same as have been used with their site's prior iteration.

My second was advising the offering of the specific institution in question, as it's really impossible to know whether anyone else may have found an accessibility method that you (the generic you) didn't, somehow.

Talking about issues like this in the abstract is as close to a complete waste of time as one can get.  I could say, I can't access the subscription management page for my local newspaper, and it would be entirely useless to discuss unless I could give the exact URL, or say something like it's a Gannett paper and uses their subscription system (as there are hundreds of papers owned and run under the Gannett name and software).

I understand the abstract concepts regarding accessibility.  They're just of little use when discussing a specific situation and whether anyone may, or may not, have discovered a workaround.  Talking about issues with accessibility without specifics makes trying to find a solution akin to trying to nail jello to a tree.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043  

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.  The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body.  What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are.

      ~ Brian Vogel

 


Jackie
 

It would be nice if OCR could be taught to recognize these
checkboxes/radio buttons as such & also their state. Doesn't seem like
that should be all that hard w/AI & all that now.

On 7/4/21, Gene <gsasner@gmail.com> wrote:
You disagreed with me. I responded and that’s how the discussion began. I
do ;pay attention and respond to what people say. You said this in your
initial disagreement:
“I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. While I agree it can be annoying to
find one's favorite browser does not "play well" with a given site, or that
one's favorite screen reader does not, that does not mean a site is
inaccessible.”

As I said, there is a difference between accessible and usable. And you
never defined accessible. You criticized my definition as being abstract.
Without a generally accepted and defined definition of accessibility, there
would be no standards for determining when a site is or isn’t accessible
which would pose all sorts of problems.

All I said was that the problem should be called to the attention of the
bank even if a work around is found. I said nothing about people needing or
not needing to use other browsers or screen-readers. I didn’t say everyone
who encounters any site they need to use a work around to access should
complain to the site. Nor am I saying that a site has to work properly with
every possible combination of programs. But a site like this, a banking
site, should be generally accessible.

Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Vogel
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:22 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 08:03 PM, Gene wrote:

I’m saying that, in a case like this, where a major site is not usable by
a widely used screen-reader and browser or class of browsers, that site is
not accessible.
-
And I have said nothing that contradicts that in regard to this specific
site from the outset.

For the love of heaven, Gene, please read, and respond to, what I have
actually written, with the entire context of an ongoing conversation being
used as the framework. I don't make additions to a topic like this that are
each meant to stand, independently, of all others.

My very first response was to take this up with customer support since the
only change had been to the website. The screen reader and browser were the
same as have been used with their site's prior iteration.

My second was advising the offering of the specific institution in question,
as it's really impossible to know whether anyone else may have found an
accessibility method that you (the generic you) didn't, somehow.

Talking about issues like this in the abstract is as close to a complete
waste of time as one can get. I could say, I can't access the subscription
management page for my local newspaper, and it would be entirely useless to
discuss unless I could give the exact URL, or say something like it's a
Gannett paper and uses their subscription system (as there are hundreds of
papers owned and run under the Gannett name and software).

I understand the abstract concepts regarding accessibility. They're just of
little use when discussing a specific situation and whether anyone may, or
may not, have discovered a workaround. Talking about issues with
accessibility without specifics makes trying to find a solution akin to
trying to nail jello to a tree.

--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.
The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression,
which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the
clearest indicator of who you are.

~ Brian Vogel








--
Subscribe to a WordPress for Newbies Mailing List by sending a message to:
wp4newbs-request@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in the Subject field OR by
visiting the list page at http://www.freelists.org/list/wp4newbs
& check out my sites at www.brightstarsweb.com & www.mysitesbeenhacked.com


Gene
 

I wonder if these check boxes respond to the keyboard.


Also, I wonder why they are being used.  What makes them preferable, if they are to what are now standard check boxes?


Gene

On 7/4/2021 8:50 PM, Jackie wrote:
It would be nice if OCR could be taught to recognize these
checkboxes/radio buttons as such & also their state. Doesn't seem like
that should be all that hard w/AI & all that now.

On 7/4/21, Gene <gsasner@gmail.com> wrote:
You disagreed with me. I responded and that’s how the discussion began. I
do ;pay attention and respond to what people say. You said this in your
initial disagreement:
“I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. While I agree it can be annoying to
find one's favorite browser does not "play well" with a given site, or that
one's favorite screen reader does not, that does not mean a site is
inaccessible.”

As I said, there is a difference between accessible and usable. And you
never defined accessible. You criticized my definition as being abstract.
Without a generally accepted and defined definition of accessibility, there
would be no standards for determining when a site is or isn’t accessible
which would pose all sorts of problems.

All I said was that the problem should be called to the attention of the
bank even if a work around is found. I said nothing about people needing or
not needing to use other browsers or screen-readers. I didn’t say everyone
who encounters any site they need to use a work around to access should
complain to the site. Nor am I saying that a site has to work properly with
every possible combination of programs. But a site like this, a banking
site, should be generally accessible.

Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Vogel
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:22 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 08:03 PM, Gene wrote:

I’m saying that, in a case like this, where a major site is not usable by
a widely used screen-reader and browser or class of browsers, that site is
not accessible.
-
And I have said nothing that contradicts that in regard to this specific
site from the outset.

For the love of heaven, Gene, please read, and respond to, what I have
actually written, with the entire context of an ongoing conversation being
used as the framework. I don't make additions to a topic like this that are
each meant to stand, independently, of all others.

My very first response was to take this up with customer support since the
only change had been to the website. The screen reader and browser were the
same as have been used with their site's prior iteration.

My second was advising the offering of the specific institution in question,
as it's really impossible to know whether anyone else may have found an
accessibility method that you (the generic you) didn't, somehow.

Talking about issues like this in the abstract is as close to a complete
waste of time as one can get. I could say, I can't access the subscription
management page for my local newspaper, and it would be entirely useless to
discuss unless I could give the exact URL, or say something like it's a
Gannett paper and uses their subscription system (as there are hundreds of
papers owned and run under the Gannett name and software).

I understand the abstract concepts regarding accessibility. They're just of
little use when discussing a specific situation and whether anyone may, or
may not, have discovered a workaround. Talking about issues with
accessibility without specifics makes trying to find a solution akin to
trying to nail jello to a tree.

--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.
The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression,
which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the
clearest indicator of who you are.

~ Brian Vogel









Sarah k Alawami
 

All of your emails are abstract, and generally unhelpful. If you cannot, gean, provide any helpful info then I say get off of here and learn how to actually listen to what we are saying. You hear but you c cannot listen.

On 4 Jul 2021, at 17:48, Gene wrote:

You disagreed with me.  I responded and that’s how the discussion began.  I do ;pay attention and respond to what people say.  You said this in your initial disagreement:
“I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.  While I agree it can be annoying to find one's favorite browser does not "play well" with a given site, or that one's favorite screen reader does not, that does not mean a site is inaccessible.” 
 
As I said, there is a difference between accessible and usable.  And you never defined accessible.  You criticized my definition as being abstract.  Without a generally accepted and defined definition of accessibility, there would be no standards for determining when a site is or isn’t accessible which would pose all sorts of problems. 
 
All I said was that the problem should be called to the attention of the bank even if a work around is found.  I said nothing about people needing or not needing to use other browsers or screen-readers.  I didn’t say everyone who encounters any site they need to use a work around to access should complain to the site.  Nor am I saying that a site has to work properly with every possible combination of programs.  But a site like this, a banking site, should be generally accessible. 
 
Gene
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.
 
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 08:03 PM, Gene wrote:
I’m saying that, in a case like this, where a major site is not usable by a widely used screen-reader and browser or class of browsers, that site is not accessible.
-
And I have said nothing that contradicts that in regard to this specific site from the outset.

For the love of heaven, Gene, please read, and respond to, what I have actually written, with the entire context of an ongoing conversation being used as the framework.  I don't make additions to a topic like this that are each meant to stand, independently, of all others.

My very first response was to take this up with customer support since the only change had been to the website.  The screen reader and browser were the same as have been used with their site's prior iteration.

My second was advising the offering of the specific institution in question, as it's really impossible to know whether anyone else may have found an accessibility method that you (the generic you) didn't, somehow.

Talking about issues like this in the abstract is as close to a complete waste of time as one can get.  I could say, I can't access the subscription management page for my local newspaper, and it would be entirely useless to discuss unless I could give the exact URL, or say something like it's a Gannett paper and uses their subscription system (as there are hundreds of papers owned and run under the Gannett name and software).

I understand the abstract concepts regarding accessibility.  They're just of little use when discussing a specific situation and whether anyone may, or may not, have discovered a workaround.  Talking about issues with accessibility without specifics makes trying to find a solution akin to trying to nail jello to a tree.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043  

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.  The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body.  What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are.

      ~ Brian Vogel

 


Sarah k Alawami
 

This I have to agree with. I'm not a coder, but I am an end user, and I have ai believe voiced my conserns with this. I can use some stuff and even click with some stuff with OCR but it is hit and miss, more miss, at best.

On 4 Jul 2021, at 18:50, Jackie wrote:

It would be nice if OCR could be taught to recognize these
checkboxes/radio buttons as such & also their state. Doesn't seem like
that should be all that hard w/AI & all that now.

On 7/4/21, Gene <gsasner@gmail.com> wrote:
You disagreed with me. I responded and that’s how the discussion began. I
do ;pay attention and respond to what people say. You said this in your
initial disagreement:
“I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. While I agree it can be annoying to
find one's favorite browser does not "play well" with a given site, or that
one's favorite screen reader does not, that does not mean a site is
inaccessible.”

As I said, there is a difference between accessible and usable. And you
never defined accessible. You criticized my definition as being abstract.
Without a generally accepted and defined definition of accessibility, there
would be no standards for determining when a site is or isn’t accessible
which would pose all sorts of problems.

All I said was that the problem should be called to the attention of the
bank even if a work around is found. I said nothing about people needing or
not needing to use other browsers or screen-readers. I didn’t say everyone
who encounters any site they need to use a work around to access should
complain to the site. Nor am I saying that a site has to work properly with
every possible combination of programs. But a site like this, a banking
site, should be generally accessible.

Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Vogel
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:22 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 08:03 PM, Gene wrote:

I’m saying that, in a case like this, where a major site is not usable by
a widely used screen-reader and browser or class of browsers, that site is
not accessible.
-
And I have said nothing that contradicts that in regard to this specific
site from the outset.

For the love of heaven, Gene, please read, and respond to, what I have
actually written, with the entire context of an ongoing conversation being
used as the framework. I don't make additions to a topic like this that are
each meant to stand, independently, of all others.

My very first response was to take this up with customer support since the
only change had been to the website. The screen reader and browser were the
same as have been used with their site's prior iteration.

My second was advising the offering of the specific institution in question,
as it's really impossible to know whether anyone else may have found an
accessibility method that you (the generic you) didn't, somehow.

Talking about issues like this in the abstract is as close to a complete
waste of time as one can get. I could say, I can't access the subscription
management page for my local newspaper, and it would be entirely useless to
discuss unless I could give the exact URL, or say something like it's a
Gannett paper and uses their subscription system (as there are hundreds of
papers owned and run under the Gannett name and software).

I understand the abstract concepts regarding accessibility. They're just of
little use when discussing a specific situation and whether anyone may, or
may not, have discovered a workaround. Talking about issues with
accessibility without specifics makes trying to find a solution akin to
trying to nail jello to a tree.

--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.
The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression,
which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the
clearest indicator of who you are.

~ Brian Vogel









--
Subscribe to a WordPress for Newbies Mailing List by sending a message to:
wp4newbs-request@freelists.org with 'subscribe' in the Subject field OR by
visiting the list page at http://www.freelists.org/list/wp4newbs
& check out my sites at www.brightstarsweb.com & www.mysitesbeenhacked.com



Gene
 

Your malicious and inaccurate message doesn’t even deserve a response. 
 
Gene

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2021 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.
 

All of your emails are abstract, and generally unhelpful. If you cannot, gean, provide any helpful info then I say get off of here and learn how to actually listen to what we are saying. You hear but you c cannot listen.

On 4 Jul 2021, at 17:48, Gene wrote:

You disagreed with me.  I responded and that’s how the discussion began.  I do ;pay attention and respond to what people say.  You said this in your initial disagreement:
“I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.  While I agree it can be annoying to find one's favorite browser does not "play well" with a given site, or that one's favorite screen reader does not, that does not mean a site is inaccessible.” 
 
As I said, there is a difference between accessible and usable.  And you never defined accessible.  You criticized my definition as being abstract.  Without a generally accepted and defined definition of accessibility, there would be no standards for determining when a site is or isn’t accessible which would pose all sorts of problems. 
 
All I said was that the problem should be called to the attention of the bank even if a work around is found.  I said nothing about people needing or not needing to use other browsers or screen-readers.  I didn’t say everyone who encounters any site they need to use a work around to access should complain to the site.  Nor am I saying that a site has to work properly with every possible combination of programs.  But a site like this, a banking site, should be generally accessible. 
 
Gene
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.
 
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 08:03 PM, Gene wrote:
I’m saying that, in a case like this, where a major site is not usable by a widely used screen-reader and browser or class of browsers, that site is not accessible.
-
And I have said nothing that contradicts that in regard to this specific site from the outset.

For the love of heaven, Gene, please read, and respond to, what I have actually written, with the entire context of an ongoing conversation being used as the framework.  I don't make additions to a topic like this that are each meant to stand, independently, of all others.

My very first response was to take this up with customer support since the only change had been to the website.  The screen reader and browser were the same as have been used with their site's prior iteration.

My second was advising the offering of the specific institution in question, as it's really impossible to know whether anyone else may have found an accessibility method that you (the generic you) didn't, somehow.

Talking about issues like this in the abstract is as close to a complete waste of time as one can get.  I could say, I can't access the subscription management page for my local newspaper, and it would be entirely useless to discuss unless I could give the exact URL, or say something like it's a Gannett paper and uses their subscription system (as there are hundreds of papers owned and run under the Gannett name and software).

I understand the abstract concepts regarding accessibility.  They're just of little use when discussing a specific situation and whether anyone may, or may not, have discovered a workaround.  Talking about issues with accessibility without specifics makes trying to find a solution akin to trying to nail jello to a tree.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043  

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.  The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body.  What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are.

      ~ Brian Vogel

 


 

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:06 AM, Gene wrote:
Your malicious and inaccurate message doesn’t even deserve a response.
-
Gene, you can call it whatever you like.  Two people have now called you out for the same thing.

You do not read for content and you do not listen to feedback.  You respond to what you want others to have said, not what they have said, and respond in isolation to single messages rather than an ongoing conversation and do this on a constant basis.  It's been going on for years.

You don't take gentle feedback, you don't take harsh feedback.  You just will not listen to what others are telling you, repeatedly.  That's your problem, not ours.  You will not own your own behavior.
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043  

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.  The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body.  What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are.

      ~ Brian Vogel

 


Gene
 

I’m sorry you feel that way. If I do, it is not intentional. If I misunderstand a point and don’t respond to it, that’s a misunderstanding.  I’m willing to consider specific examples and I’ve told people in the past that I am willing to do so on the rare occasions someone has complained.  But no one sends me any.  I can’t respond to generalizations. 
 
It is impossible to get along with everyone.  there are over a thousand members on this list.  I am on other lists that have a large number of members.  If I am so unreasonable and argumentative, why do I not have all sorts of problems?  Being called out by two people among perhaps seventeen hundred members of various lists isn’t very convincing.  But numbers don’t prove that either of us is right.  But they really challenge your contention.
 
On the rare instances when someone takes exception to what I say, I don’t mean disagreeing about something regarding technology or a list topic, but they object to the way I say something, I can usually come to an amicable understanding with the person.  The offer I have made in the ;past still stands.  If you want to send me concrete examples, you said this, which didn’t address this point I made, etc. I’ll consider them.  Whether I agree or not, I will consider them.  If people have such examples or other comments, they should be sent to me offlist.
 
Gene

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2021 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.
 
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:06 AM, Gene wrote:
Your malicious and inaccurate message doesn’t even deserve a response.
-
Gene, you can call it whatever you like.  Two people have now called you out for the same thing.

You do not read for content and you do not listen to feedback.  You respond to what you want others to have said, not what they have said, and respond in isolation to single messages rather than an ongoing conversation and do this on a constant basis.  It's been going on for years.

You don't take gentle feedback, you don't take harsh feedback.  You just will not listen to what others are telling you, repeatedly.  That's your problem, not ours.  You will not own your own behavior.
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043  

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.  The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body.  What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are.

      ~ Brian Vogel

 


 

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 03:16 PM, Gene wrote:
If you want to send me concrete examples, you said this, which didn’t address this point I made, etc. I’ll consider them.
-
No, Gene, you don't and you won't.  I've been down this road on multiple occasions with in the past, too.  I am no longer wasting my breath or my effort.

Others are not responsible to go back and get you retrospective evidence for things that have been brought to your attention on multiple occasions.  Not our jobs.  We did what we thought we should when the situations presented themselves in the natural course of things.

You have been called out about this, and not only by me, on way more than one occasion and on several of the groups we both mutually haunt.  You just don't care to listen and your offers now ring entirely hollow.  I've done what I can, and with this I'm done.  I'm just going to have to learn to ignore you when the next rounds occur, and they will.
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043  

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.  The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body.  What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are.

      ~ Brian Vogel

 


Gene
 

the disagreement yesterday is an example where I discuss objections.  I tried to clarify what I had said when you sent objections.  I replied to specific objections. 


For example, you talked about how there are so many different combinations of  programs that they won't all work well with every screen-reader.  I clarified that I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about a site not being usable with a widely used screen-reader or a whole class of browsers such as with Chrome-based browsers. 


I still don't know what you were objecting to since every time I altered or clarified what I said, you never indicated that you thought I was addressing any objection you raised. 


In your last message, you said that I have problems with people on various lists.  I generally don't have problems and if someone objects to something I say I attempt to discuss the matter with them and we usually end up understanding the disagreement and either coming to an agreement or disagreeing but without rancor. 


I can't prove what I say.  Obviously, I can't reproduce years of list traffic to show how infrequently people object to my posts.  But anyone who wants to see how I respond is welcome to find out for themselves by raising objections.  I may agree or disagree, but I will discuss them and if a point is raised that I think may change my mind about something, I'll say that I'm considering it or that I have changed my mind about something. 


Of course, if objections are not on topic for the list, people should write me off list.  I will respond and discuss the matter(s) raised. 


Gene

On 7/5/2021 3:51 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 03:16 PM, Gene wrote:
If you want to send me concrete examples, you said this, which didn’t address this point I made, etc. I’ll consider them.
-
No, Gene, you don't and you won't.  I've been down this road on multiple occasions with in the past, too.  I am no longer wasting my breath or my effort.

Others are not responsible to go back and get you retrospective evidence for things that have been brought to your attention on multiple occasions.  Not our jobs.  We did what we thought we should when the situations presented themselves in the natural course of things.

You have been called out about this, and not only by me, on way more than one occasion and on several of the groups we both mutually haunt.  You just don't care to listen and your offers now ring entirely hollow.  I've done what I can, and with this I'm done.  I'm just going to have to learn to ignore you when the next rounds occur, and they will.
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043  

I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.  The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which are contained in and actuated by the body.  What you do and say is the clearest indicator of who you are.

      ~ Brian Vogel