From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net([199.45.39.156]) (3233 bytes) by braille.uwo.ca via smail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe (sender: ) id for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:25:29 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.102 1998-Aug-2 #2 built 1999-Sep-5) Received: from adsl-151-200-20-29.bellatlantic.net (adsl-151-200-20-29.bellatlantic.net [151.200.20.29]) by smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA08538 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (janina@localhost) by adsl-151-200-20-29.bellatlantic.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA05754 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:17:47 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: adsl-151-200-20-29.bellatlantic.net: janina owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:17:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Janina Sajka X-Sender: janina@adsl-151-200-20-29.bellatlantic.net To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca Subject: Re: GUIs (was Re: A comment on Slashdot) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Id: Isn't MSAA de facto evidence of the failure of MS operating and application environments for access. Put the other way, if Windows and Windows applications could directly support alternate interface technologies, would there still be a need for MSAA? My answer, just in case someone cares, is that MSAA proves that M$ is the wrong environment for people with disabilities. On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 cpt.kirk@1tree.net wrote: > You are right that at least M$ has done something. But I would also remind > you that Netscape isn't the only group not supporting MSAA. Heck, even the > screen readers weren't jumping on that wagon. Hynter-Joyce bypassed it > when they supported IE4 initially. Don't know the company name, but > Window Eyes also was slow to support it. And Daulphin found that not > paying much attention to M$ whims was benificial as well. > > While I think Netscape could have done more, it was also fighting to even > stay alive (and failed). Truthfully, Winblows is so convoluted, that I > think screen reading is always going to be somewhat convoluted. Keep in > mind that though MSAA is supposedly part of the OS, support is not > automatic. In my limited view, the OS should be able to deal with reading > any text it creates. Thus, software manufacturers should not have to worry > about being accessible (other then to include such things as keyboard > shortcuts). > > DOS applications never took time to be accessible. They sent text off to > the OS and it was done. Same with the console apps in Linux. I would bet > that few (if any) of the apps you use in Linux ever had blind accesibility > as a part of their design criteria. It should be built in by running on > the accessible OS. > > Kirk Wood > Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net > ------------------ > > Why can't you be a non-conformist, like everybody else? > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > -- Janina Sajka, Director Information Systems Research & Development American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) janina@afb.net