I think there is no reason to ever fear that VOiceOver would become like JAWS, Window-Eyes, or any other screen reader. I don't know that I myself have much use for scripting, but it is an option that software vendors are going to use as an excuse to avoid making their apps accessible. I think instead as one person pointed out, is a tool, which can extend the functionality of VoiceOver and this offers some real benefits in dealing with complex situations. So, I understand the concerns, but I can see the benefits and why screen readers are going this direction. After all, look how long it took before Window-Eyes took on scripting. This was done not so much as to be competitive I bet as much as some situations have become complex enough that "set" files just couldn't handle it.
On Sep 7, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Jes Smith wrote: > > Thanks for that reassurance that voice over will not become like jaws. > > Jes > > On Sep 7, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Chris Hofstader wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> Probably because I was once a VP at Freedom Scientific, I see the >> value in and strongly support adding scripting to VO. >> >> I agree that using scripts to launch applications from within a >> screen >> reader should be discouraged and I agree that some other things you >> mention in your email should be avoided as there are other techniques >> to get the same job. >> >> The fear that "VO will turn into JAWS for Macintosh," is mostly >> unfounded though. The reason JAWS needs scripts for virtually every >> application it supports is that they have an OSM and, given relative >> screen coordinates can tease the text drawn directly without MSAA or >> iAccessible2 involved. This helps make the completely inaccessible >> into something that is marginally and sometimes very accessible. >> >> VO has no OSM. Even with the new scripting facility, it cannot >> correct the owner drawn interfaces (I've been trying to get VO and >> MacSpeech Dictate to talk and its a hemorrhoid of a project). What >> AppleScript gives us is the ability to add features to a combination >> of programs where the authors did a decent job of making their >> software accessible but the user would benefit from some very deep >> contextual information that would be very difficult for a generic API >> to deliver. >> >> I read a post (I think on this list) about reading table headers in >> the iWork spreadsheet. the post said it works great if the headers >> are on the top row but starts to fail if they are elsewhere. >> >> So, why not write a script that allows multiple tables, each with >> their own headings to exist in a single spreadsheet? No API is smart >> enough to do this but, I would think that a script driven >> communication system between VO and the worksheet could do it in a >> fairly straight forward manner. This script could also "mangle" the >> worksheet file name in a manner that is unique so, if you reload the >> same document, your headers will be there for you. Even cooler, if >> you open a spreadsheet with a very similar name (Sales Report >> 1/1/2009, Sales Report 2/1/2009, etc.) they will probably have the >> same format and the user can be offered the opportunity to load last >> month's headers. >> >> There are lots of ideas that can be expressed in scripts that a >> generic screen reader cannot understand. >> >> Happy Curt Flood Day, >> cdh >> On Sep 7, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Jes Smith wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> I am greatly concerned that voice over now has support for >>> scripting. >>> Especially now that you can make voice over launch an application >>> with >>> a single script. I'm not talking about glancing at the time or >>> seeing >>> how many unread messages you have in mail. I'm talking about opening >>> up apps like mail or Safari from within Voice OVer. I am concerned >>> that voice over is starting to become a bit like Jaws, and that if >>> we >>> don't get a grip on it now, voice over will become Jaws for >>> Macintosh. >>> I, like Mike Arrigo, don't feel that launching apps is something >>> that >>> should be implemented in a screen reader. Also, I fear that the use >>> of >>> apple scripts will replace the responsibility of an application >>> developer to make their application accessible right out of the box. >>> On the Windows side, if something isn't accessible with Jaws, you >>> just >>> download scripts for it. What if you go to another person's computer >>> and they don't have the scripts for the app you are trying to use? >>> It's my belief that a certain article from the NFB prompted this >>> scripting support. Folks, the thing I like about voice over is that >>> it >>> gives the blind user the same conceptual layout and information as >>> it >>> appears on the screen to a sighted user. No other screen reader does >>> this, and we should keep voice over as a screen reader, and let it >>> be. >>> If we don't, eventually, when we try and contact an Apple developer, >>> they will either ignore us, or will say, "Well, just download the >>> scripts for my application and you will have access." >>> Any thoughts? If someone disagrees with me, I'd love to hear your >>> arguments, not so that I can persuade you to agree with me, but so >>> that I can have a new perspective. >>> >>> Jes >>> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
