Re: beginning to think that JAWS 5.1 is more stable than 6

  • From: "Reed Poynter" <Reed.Poynter@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 23:09:35 -0800

So the problem is with numbers with "-" and "." in them and the
insert-left/right-arrows.  I agree, it's a real pain.
But, it's been a pain for so long, I'd forgotten that JAWS used to do it
right.
Or, the forgetting might be just another symptom of the aging process; what
another pain. (smile)

Reed
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ptusing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2005/01/02 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: beginning to think that JAWS 5.1 is more stable than 6


> Hi,
> NO,  you are not out to lunch. With JAWWS 3.5 and earlier versions, if you
> used  insert + right or left arrow, you could read words or numbers with
> dashes in them or decimals etc.
> If  one is comparing numbers with decimals, it is a royal pain to hit 4
> keystrokes if one wouldwork and since JAWS 5.1 had read whole number as a
> default, one used
> the easy comman insert right/left arrows  as with JAWS 3.5.
> F S said they had lots of requests for it and 3.5 offered it as a default.
> Depends  on if one must read numbers all day long.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Reed Poynter" <Reed.Poynter@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 8:00 PM
> Subject: Re: beginning to think that JAWS 5.1 is more stable than 6
>
>
> > Am I totaly out to lunch here?  I don't understand the problem.
> >
> > Reed
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: <ptusing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: 2005/01/02 4:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: beginning to think that JAWS 5.1 is more stable than 6
> >
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > With  JAWS 5.0038, the read next word  usedthe single key command
> > > insert right arrow or  leftarrow for reading  previous word
independpent
> > of
> > > synthesizer.
> > > With 5.1 and 6, one  has to addthe keystroke.
> > > Lots of people asked to have read whole  word (number) with single
> > keystroke
> > > as itwas with JAWS 3.5 and as  far as  I am concerned, F S  could so
> > easily
> > > fix it since they acknowledge knowing about it as  of  5.0038.
> > >
> > >
> > > In
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "Chris Skarstad" <toonhead5@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 5:01 PM
> > > Subject: Re: beginning to think that JAWS 5.1 is more stable than 6
> > >
> > >
> > > > Well, remember that the synthesizer you're using also factors into
the
> > > > numbers and how they are read. Both JAWS and the synthesizer work
> > together
> > > > on that one. So if it's not reading something correctly, it might be
> the
> > > > synth's problem and not the screenreader.
> > > > It is annoying i know.
> > > >
> > > > At 03:36 PM 1/2/2005, you wrote:
> > > > >I have the ILM installed, not form the CD, but I put in the number
FS
> > > gave
> > > > >me manually, if that's a help,  drop me an email.
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: <ptusing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 4:27 PM
> > > > >Subject: Re: beginning to think that JAWS 5.1 is more stable than 6
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > In fairness, I must say JAWS 6 agreeing with Bruce is more
stable
> > and
> > > > > > works
> > > > > > much better than 5.1 but I  was always a bigger fan of JAWS
> 5.0038.
> > > > > > I figured out that  reading list views often requires using
"read
> > > current
> > > > > > line" since they are often silent  but one can use letters to
get
> > > through
> > > > > > listviews.'Again, F S did not  implement "read whole number"
> > > > > > correctly--delimiteres are  read right in emails--I am talking
> about
> > > the
> > > > > > needfor better  number reading efficiently   elsewhere    since
> > > numbers
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > so  important. We    get to set the "control insert arrow"thing
> > again.
> > > > > > Dangit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JAWS 6 does show "  some improvement working with MAGIC at the
> > > sametime
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > since I cross tested every MAGIC version with the 4 JAWS
versions
> I
> > > have,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > now believe the F S take on video cards made by ATI  may be less
> > > correct
> > > > > > than they think since J 6 tolerates simultaneous  MAGIC/JAWS
use
> > > > > > "better".
> > > > > > (However list of video cards for use with MAGIC and JAWS still
is
> > not
> > > > > > available). I suspect problems relate more to which   JAWS
> version
> > > not
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > video card.
> > > > > > Now, amazingly, every JAWS version since 4.51 has yielded
> different
> > > > > > results
> > > > > > using my cherished "s"  keystroke which saves me 70% searching
> time
> > on
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > extensive web sites, shoppingsites etc. and with J 6, some text
> > links
> > > are
> > > > > > skipped capriciously or entirely depending on the site with
> graphics
> > > found
> > > > > > instead but the "s"  is quirky whereas it worked great with 4.5
> and
> > > 4.51.
> > > > > > Of course a broken "s"  key comand is better than none as saving
> > time
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > hectic days means more time not working.
> > > > > > Finally JAWS 6 is  more responsive and better meaning faster  at
> > > > > > proofreading text  in  email messages    and I appreciate it.
> > > > > > Hope they finally give us great number reading with a"  single
> > > keystroke
> > > > > > past those delimeters like decimals and keep working on the "s".
> > > > > > When  some  one  installs the  i l m, could they please write me
> off
> > > list
> > > > > > with instructions for doing it in detail as I disagree that
clear
> > and
> > > > > > adequate info is available now but do not wish to start a fight.
> > > > > > Happy New Year to all and thanks to the help given  here onthis
> > great
> > > > > > list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Bruce Toews" <water_drinker@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 2:34 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: beginning to think that JAWS 5.1 is more stable
than
> 6
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> This is odd, and proof positive that different people
experience
> > > > > >> different
> > > > > >> results. It's been my experience that JAWS 6, at least on my
work
> > > > > >> computer
> > > > > >> where I've been able to try it, has been quite a lot more
stable
> > than
> > > > > >> 5.1.
> > > > > >> So ... go figure.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Bruce
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Bruce Toews
> > > > > >> E-mail and MSN/Windows Messenger: water_drinker@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > >> Web Site (including info on my weekly commentaries):
> > > http://www.ogts.net
> > > > > >> For information on my weekly radio show visit
> > > > > >> http://radioclassics.ogts.net
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Ray Foret Jr. wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Dear Tracey Jackson and JFW list,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >    After nearly a week or so with JAWS 6, and after having
done
> 4
> > > > > >> > installations of JAWS 6 and reconfiguring manually all my
> > settings
> > > each
> > > > > > time
> > > > > >> > but the first two, and after having done quite a bit of
> browsing
> > on
> > > the
> > > > > >> > internet, and after having experienced problems with how JFW
> > > version 6
> > > > > >> > behaves with Windows Messenger, and after having audio
skipping
> > > issues
> > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > JFW version 6 and not any of these issues with JAWS version
> 5.1,
> > I
> > > am
> > > > > >> > beginning to come to the conclusion that JAWS 6 is quite a
bit
> of
> > a
> > > > > >> > step
> > > > > >> > backward rather than forward.  Some sluggishness still
remains
> > with
> > > my
> > > > > >> > keyboard, I still cannot resolve the Windows Messenger issues
> > with
> > > > > >> > names
> > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > contacts signing in and not being announced without also
having
> > > option
> > > > > > 12
> > > > > >> > JAWS Messages turned on (this was not necessary with JAWS
5.1).
> > > Pages
> > > > > > are
> > > > > >> > taking much longer to load with JAWS version 6 than they ever
> did
> > > with
> > > > > > JAWS
> > > > > >> > 5.1.  There are just so many issues I have found that I may
> > revert
> > > back
> > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > JAWS 5.1.  I'm willing to wait to see if the ILM version of
> JAWS
> > > > > >> > version
> > > > > > 6
> > > > > >> > behaves better than the Quella version of JAWS version 6 I'm
> now
> > > using;
> > > > > > but,
> > > > > >> > if all of the behavior factors I mentioned above remain the
> same,
> > I
> > > > > >> > will
> > > > > >> > most likely switch back to 5.1.  I'd kind of hate to do that
> > > because
> > > > > >> > I'd
> > > > > >> > like to believe that FS. always moves forward with progress
of
> > this
> > > > > > product.
> > > > > >> > It does seem to me, however, that, despite the best of advice
> > which
> > > I
> > > > > > have
> > > > > >> > had directly from FS tech support and from others who are
very
> > > > > > knowledgeable
> > > > > >> > about JAWS,  many an issue yet remains with at least the
Quella
> > > version
> > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > JAWS 6.  IF the ILM version of JAWS version 6 proves no
better,
> I
> > > may
> > > > > > revert
> > > > > >> > to JAWS version 5.1 upon installing my new hard drive.  I
still
> > > have a
> > > > > > key
> > > > > >> > on floppy disk which I could use, however, if I do switch
back
> to
> > > JAWS
> > > > > >> > version 5.1, would I be better off using the ILM version or
> just
> > > stick
> > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > the Quella?  If anybody else out there can shed some light on
> > this
> > > > > > matter,
> > > > > >> > I'd appreciate it very much.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Sincerely Yours,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The Constantly BAREFOOTED
> > > > > >> > Ray
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Home Phone And Fax:  (985)853-0139
> > > > > >> > E-mail and Windows Messenger:
> > > > > >> > rforetjr@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > God Bless President George W Bush
> > > > > >> > God Bless America
> > > > > >> > And God Bless Our Troops
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
> > > > > > jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the
subject
> > > line.
> > > > > >> Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the
> > list,
> > > or
> > > > > > the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list.
> Rather
> > > > > > contact
> > > > > > the list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
> > > > > > jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the
subject
> > > line.
> > > > > > Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the
> > list,
> > > or
> > > > > > the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list.
> Rather
> > > > > > contact the list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
> > > > >jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject
> > line.
> > > > >Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
> > > > >
> > > > >If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the
list,
> > or
> > > > >the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather
> > > > >contact the list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
> > > jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject
line.
> > > > Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
> > > >
> > > > If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the
list,
> or
> > > the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather
> > contact
> > > the list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > --
> > > To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
> > jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
> > > Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
> > >
> > > If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list,
or
> > the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather
> contact
> > the list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > --
> > To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
> jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
> > Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
> >
> > If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or
> the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather
contact
> the list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> --
> To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
> Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
>
> If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or
the way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact
the list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>

--
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to 
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw

If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the 
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the 
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts: