On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 23:50, Karen Lewellen <klewel...@shellworld.net> wrote: > > As for your frankly disturbing stereotypes and generalizations about > adaptive technology and the individuals using it, well, I would hope you > would not tell someone to do themselves physical harm to satisfy your > stereotypes, something you just did to me.
This is unfair, undeserved and frankly rude. > I stated that there is no Linux distribution that I can use... You have not demonstrated any actual knowledge of this, though. > you > suggest I use something that I already know could result in my > hospitalization..why exactly? 1. He did not suggest anything of the kind. 2. He did not know anything of the kind, because you have not told us anything about what issues you may or may not have, so we have nothing to go on and no way to decide what is or is not appropriate. 3. You are unfairly throwing serious accusations around, and you should be ashamed of yourself. > I believe I know more about my adaptive needs then yourself. Yes, you do, but if you had told us anything, we could help. You did not. > Screen readers are used by many populations, for > learning disabilities for example, with less than 10% of the > sight loss population reading braille..at all. Oddly enough I have been working with screen reader users professionally for over 15 years now. You don't know about us, we don't know about you. The difference is we are not making assumptions: you are. > You are no medical professional, and until you have personally made use > of adaptive technology daily, for at least 30 years please do not risk > physical danger to another person as you have done here... This is completely bogus. If you ask for info, you get info; you do not get to complain if you do not like it. > Use Linux indeed, and have a Cesar? I presume you mean a seizure. > Linux is out, because the software speech synthesis stimulates my > brain's dizzy centres at best, causing epileptic like reactions at minimum > and risking unconsciousness with prolong exposure. I have never met or even heard of anything like this in my decade and a half of work experience with sensorily-impaired computer users, including blind, deaf and deaf-blind users. I am starting to doubt that you are being sincere and honest with us here. > In fact that > applies to most software speech for me...which is what Linux graphical > uses. It is what all modern screen readers use, and I personally have used them on Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Android, iOS, and Symbian. The reasons are very simple and clear. 1. It is much cheaper. 2. It needs no hardware, no drivers, no connection, no support, nothing. 3. It is almost infinitely customisable in terms of speed, pitch, gender, regional accent, etc. The reason that software speech generation has replaced hardware is that it is better. Full stop. > Command line Linux, where hardware speech is possible for some, but > not me since what I use has no Linux driver, Then you must do what my best friend did: adapt. He had one particular voice that he was almost wedded to. He ran the same voice on home and work computers, on phone, everywhere. To him, computer text was this voice and this voice was text. But about a decade ago he started to encounter problems, because it was in a very old format for HAL that more modern versions of his preferred screen reader, Dolphin Supernova, could not easily read. But he found ways to import and translate it. Later an open source screenreader, NVDA, replaced Supernova for him, and he brought the voice across again, but it did not support all the facilities in Supernova, so he had to switch. > still has the same > browser limitations outlined, browsers that have not been compiled to > work with proprietary forms of JavaScript. Javascript is not proprietary, but it is almost impossible to capture its output. Graphical output in a graphical program needs very clever and elaborate programming to intercept and read. > Still, if Linux is such a grand solution, why cannot a graphical > installation be configured so it can communicate with physical > speech hardware? For the reasons I specified above. > It is already using soundcards, though be it with what many consider > dreadful results. Actually, all my blind friends love modern screen readers and their power and flexibility. And of course that, unlike in the days of JAWS and HAL and Supernova, they don't need to pay as much as a 2nd computer would cost to have built in speech. Many have switched to Macs where a pretty good screen reader is built in. Mind you, Apple do not know how to sell it. You can read about our experiences with that over on my tech blog, from 11 years ago. https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/18605.html > If you actually lived this experience rather than suggesting risky behavior > you might be aware of how poor even for those who lack physical issues, > the quality of Linux software speech is, for individuals that need access > for learning reasons, as well as for those experiencing blindness. Actually, yes, I have and yes, I do. > Kindly do not pretend to be expert in an area involving accommodations > before your ignorance hurts someone. Again with the false accusations. Karen, mind your manners. You are living up to the reputation of your name. > If freedos is never going to provide a proper browser, how can it claim to > be a fully functional operating system where networking is concerned? It doesn't. Apparently your ignorance about DOS is greater than the ignorance you are accusing this community of. -- Liam Proven – Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk – gMail/gTalk/gHangouts: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/Flickr: lproven – Skype: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 – ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053 _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
