Google abandons Windows
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 7 Jun 2010 14:53 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > My infrequent attacks on you arise simply because you are the most > obnoxious person here. Two wrongs /still/ don't make a right. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Steve Firth on 7 Jun 2010 14:47 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > I don't think you are insane, James. Steve seems to think that you and > Rowland should be treated the same way, whereas I think Rowland's mad > and you're not, so should be responded to differently. That is incorrect, and for you to constantly repeat it after you have been corrected makes you look like the insane loon you are accusing others of being. I have told you that you could accord James a similar level of decency to that you wish to see given to Rowland. However you seem to want to pick on James and persist with personal attacks. That makes you look rather shabby.
From: Jim on 7 Jun 2010 14:59 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > You didn't actually. You suggested that developers include a dedicated > > blind mode into there applications. > > I suggested that computing platform designers should include a dedicated > blind mode in the operating system that developers could exploit for the > benefit of blind users. Why not just make the existing system blind-friendly? That's what Apple does with the Accessibility API. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Jim on 7 Jun 2010 15:04 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > No more true than a statement that Daniele seems to spend most of his > time preening a fragile ego by being a pompous commentator on subjects > that he knows little or nothing about. Coming from you that's utterly hilarious. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: James Jolley on 7 Jun 2010 15:17
On 2010-06-07 19:35:41 +0100, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said: > James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > >> real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said: >> >>> [1] *I* wound him up without understanding how - he got upset because I >>> suggesting that it'd be good for blind people to have better computer >>> technology. No, really, he did. I cannot work out why or how or >>> anything. >> >> You didn't actually. You suggested that developers include a dedicated >> blind mode into there applications. > > I suggested that computing platform designers should include a dedicated > blind mode in the operating system that developers could exploit for the > benefit of blind users. It's never going to happen. The blind need to work with sighted workers in business, they're not going to have them use different application layouts just for them. > > If that's not suggesting that blind people should have better > technology, I don't know what is. > > How can you claim otherwise and expect to be taken seriously? Because I actually know what I am on about? Do you really imagine that the blind want to be more segrigated than they already are in the workplace? The point of accessibility in my case is to facilitate, not dictate. I chose to go mac, purely because I want to be in a sighted world and experience there things, not blindy things. > > <shrug> > >> Never going to happen and if it >> does, I stop using computers. > > What possible objection could you have to being given a UI which > permitted you to get more work out of a PC with greater ease, and also > permitted you easiest possible access to a greater fraction of the full > features of that PC? Would it though, or is it more of a segrigation tactic by the developers? Let's limit the functionality because he's blind and has no clue? It's a nice theory but just isn't workable. > > Because that's what I'm talking about. > > No, I'm not trying to wind you up, I'm trying to understand something > that I do not understand simply because I'm interested in the > information. I've tried to answer it before and this comes up again and again, I hope this reply helps. > > You also seem to have powerful objections to the thought that a computer > firm would develop such a technology - why object to someone proposing > the use of super high technology to make life better for blind people? I don't object to making life better, how the hell can I? I'm the one with iPhone/iPod touch, readder, mac pro, VoiceOver and all that good stuff. I'm all for gadgets. > > I just don't understand. It's simple, I want to work with the technology as it's intended. > >> I'm not interested in blindness specific >> computing thanks, > > Yes, you've explained before how you seem to want things to be slower > and more expensive and more awkward for you than ought to be necessary. > I don't understand you, but if that's what you want, off you go, I > shan't stand in your way. Fair enough > > Not that it much matters: what I'm talking about doesn't actually exist > at the moment, does it? There are some apps for the Windows OS, guide is one such. > >> I work like the sighted as much as possible. > > Oi vey! > > I'm not saying *YOU* have to change anything *YOU* do, but don't argue > that everyone else is best served by what you personally choose to do > now, don't argue that they should be denied something better than that > which you personally use now. Surely, i've a right to know what I am on about here? If this idiology were possible it'de be done already. People have to integrate though, many disabled people are segrigated as is. > > Working like the sighted is stupid if you are blind and if there is a > better alternative available - currently, you're stuck with a sighted > persons' GUI with adaptions for the blind so it's not stupid to work > that way. Thus, assuming that the world stops for the blind is also stupid. Why should it? Why shouldn't I buy the latest iPod and use it like anyone else, learning the applications? If I can't manage that device, I find a blindness specific one. Not a problem, but naturally doesn't apply to me. > > But why would you not use a really high quality blind mode UI if one > were provided? Because it's not going to ever happen. > > I don't understand why you think that your interests are best served > using a UI optmized for the sighted. Your eyes don't work - so surely > you need something /better/: you *deserve* something better from the > tech firms. They'll argue the same reasons, we want the blind to fit in to the workplace. > > That's my line - but I don't say that this proposed better thing should > be compulsory, so if you want to be some old fogie stick in the mud and > stick with what you know, why not? I shan't object. > > Rowland. > (who's an old fogie stick in the mud in that sense himself in some > directions, as it happens) Fair enough but see the reply and think on it a bit. It'll come clear I think, though you're idea is interesting as a concept. |