Peter,
I used to be a regular user of Seamonkey. I liked the idea of having a
Web browser and an email client in one single program. I'm not surprised
that you're not encountering the blank line issue, as you're not using
Outlook with Gmail. Seamonkey is based off of Thunderbird. I haven't
thought about that program in some time and I'm glad to know it's still
around.
On 11/5/2016 11:56 AM, Peter Donahue wrote:
Good morning David and everyone,
This message was not blank. We're using Outlook 2010 and Seamonkey
Mail. I'm not sure of the version of Seamonkey Mail but it works
pretty well with screen readers. In the Apple World we use Apple Mail.
All messages from this list include content and are being read by Jaws
and Voiceover fine. Hope this helps.
Peter Donahue
David Goldfield wrote:
During my time working with and using assistive technology, I have
participated in many discussion forums dealing with various pieces of
adaptive hardware and software products for the visually impaired.
One topic which often comes up has to do with the accessibility of
antivirus programs with screen readers. Usually, someone will pose a
question such as “I’m trying to find out what’s the most accessible
antivirus program which I can use with my screen reader?” There will
be many opinions, of course, with people commenting on this or that
antivirus package which works well with a particular screen reader.
This is certainly an important topic and one which definitely needs
to be addressed. I would like to weigh in on this issue and begin the
answer to that question by saying that we might not be starting out
with the right question.
Some of the things I'm about to write regarding the subject of
antivirus accessibility may be controversial to some and may possibly
ruffle some feathers. This is not my intent. I'd just like to offer a
slightly different perspective on this topic.
The question we should all be asking, whether we're blind or sighted,
is what antivirus or security solution is highly rated, according to
independent lab tests. I realize the problem with this question is
that, sometimes, what some may consider to be a good antivirus
solution might not be compatible with our screen reader of choice.
When we find out that specific solutions we might otherwise have
considered don't work well with our screen reader, we choose one
which is more accessible. Lest you think I'm looking down on other
screen reader users, please know that I did the exact same thing for
years.
In 1999, I began using what was, at that time, a current version of
Norton Antivirus on my Windows 98 machine. The program was
well-known, was shipped with my computer with a free, one year
subscription and was, from what I remember, 100% accessible.
Eventually, the program's level of accessibility began to change and
I discovered AVG 7.5. It, too, was 100% accessible and was probably
the only antivirus program which allowed the user to change and
redefine shortcut keys for its various functions, just as today’s
screen readers allow you to change the shortcut keys for their
commands. It was amazing and it seemed like it was almost made for
visually impaired screen reader users. I should note that I never
once considered whether the program was actually effective in keeping
my computer secure. As naive as this may sound, I'll admit that it
never occurred to me to actually read objective reviews to see if AVG
could do an even half-decent job in protecting my system. It was
free, super accessible and had the word antivirus in its name. What
more could I possibly want?
As I'm sure many of you will remember, version 8 of AVG came along
and, while the program was still mostly accessible, the interface
changed, keyboard shortcut reassignment was gone and, over time,
accessibility became a bit more problematic, although the program was
certainly usable enough. Bear in mind that I haven't used it in
several years and, if accessibility has improved, I'll be the first
to celebrate that fact.
So, like so many of us, I decided to find another program with the
word antivirus in its title with at least reasonable screen reader
accessibility. I found Avast 4.x and it wasn't bad. Like many blind
people, I happily used it. Until 5.0 came around and the program was
not accessible, though I know they've since been working on this and
things have likely changed.
So, I uninstalled Avast and found what I believed was the ideal
solution with Microsoft Security Essentials. It was free, seemed
light on resources and was 100% accessible. My problem, so I thought,
was solved. Over time, I began to read that MSE wasn't doing as well
in dealing with viruses but I figured, hey, I'm a cautious user. I
take a lot of precautions: I update software regularly, adjusted
security settings on my router, am careful about opening attachments
to the point of paranoia, use a script blocker on most pages ... in
other words, I was hardly what you would call reckless and used my
computer as responsibly as I knew how. Of course, I knew even then
that there was always a chance my PC could get hit by malware, no
matter how careful I was, but I believed I was reasonably safe. Until
I was hit by crippling malware which forced me to reformat my hard
drive and reinstall everything, rebuilding everything from the ground
up.
I realize that there are many people who have found an accessible or
at least usable antivirus solution who have never been hit by
malware. I'm sure there are many happy users of MSE or Windows
Defender who happily use their computer who may never be crippled by
a virus. I also realize that corporations who deploy many different
security solutions, who employ security experts who know a hundred
times more than I'll ever hope to know, still get hit by malware.
When it comes to computer security, there are no guarantees, no
matter how much you know or what you do to protect yourself. My point
is that, for years, I was content to place accessibility as a higher
priority over safety and security and that simply isn't a mistake I'm
willing to make again. For word processing, I use Microsoft Word, not
only because it's quite accessible, but because it simply is one of
the best word processors out there for what I need.
I would encourage anyone considering their security needs to read
reviews of which programs performed well with independent tests and
then download a demo version of the program they choose; I believe
most security programs offer a 30 or 60 day trial. If it doesn't
perform well with your preferred screen reader, I would do a few things.
First, write to the developer of the program with a clear description
of the accessibility issues you're experiencing, with as much detail
as you can provide. Let them know that you're considering purchasing
the software but that you're unwilling to do so until the issues
you're describing are addressed. If they don't respond, contact them
publicly on Twitter. In addition, contact your screen reader
developer to see if they can construct scripts, apps or configuration
files to try and work around what you're experiencing. Computer
security is too serious of an issue to make decisions based on how
well the program works with a screen reader, rather than making the
decision based on how well the software actually secures the precious
data on your computer. I love good conversation as much as the next
person but, if I'm trying to find a good physician, I'll choose one
based on how skilled he is as a doctor, rather than on how articulate
or eloquent he may be. If he's highly skilled and a good
conversationalist, that's fabulous but I prize skill and knowledge
over how much we might have in common to chat about.
I would also respectfully ask the staff at NV Access and VFO Group to
consider working with the developers of security software to see if
alliances can be formed, with the goal of making these important
software packages more accessible with NVDA, JAWS and Window-Eyes.
Screen reader manufacturers forge similar alliances with companies
like Microsoft for the same reasons. These alliances are what allows
programs like Window-eyes to maintain compatibility and fabulous
accessibility with programs such as Word, Excel and the operating
system itself. When screen reader manufacturers say that they're
ready to work with Windows 10 or Word 2016 out of the gate, it's
partly due to these necessary relationships they form with companies
like Microsoft. I'm not criticizing such partnerships. Nobody denies
that screen readers are useless if they don't offer great support for
products like Outlook, Word and even Windows 10 itself. I'm asking
that screen reader developers take this concept further and reach out
to developers of security programs, to form similar partnerships.
Having access to Microsoft Word is great. However, that accessibility
means nothing if the security solutions designed to protect my Word
documents isn't accessible.
At this point, some of you may be wondering which program I decided
to use. I chose Kaspersky Antivirus <http://www.kaspersky.com>. When
I had my computer in a local shop after it was hit by the virus I
wrote about earlier, the proprietor said that he used this program
and recommended it. I read a review of it in PC Magazine
<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2460689,00.asp> and was
convinced that it would be a good choice, considering how well it
performed in independent lab tests. I didn’t know what level of
accessibility it offered but I was determined to make it work, even
if I had to engage in a lot of advocacy to achieve that goal.
While the program’s accessibility isn’t perfect, it is quite usable
and I am able to adjust most of the program’s settings.
Unfortunately, the installer for the newer versions is completely
inaccessible, something which I hope Kaspersky will soon remedy.
Finally, if you’d like to talk with me and other users about what we
can do to change the accessibility landscape of security software, I
have set up a mailing list <https://davidgoldfield.wordpress.com/av/>
for that purpose. Please consider joining it and, together, perhaps
we can assist in improving screen reader accessibility of these
critical pieces of software.
You are invited to visit the moderator's Web site at
WWW.DavidGoldfield.Info for additional resources and information about
assistive technology training services.
To unsubscribe from this list, please email
blind-philly-comp-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in
the subject line.
To subscribe from another email address, send email to
blind-philly-comp-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word subscribe in the
subject line.
To contact the list administrator, please email
blind-philly-comp-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
