Ok, You did get the point on that. Just some times the way you write it. Well some one said what I think ain't always what gets to print.
At 08:14 PM 8/18/2011, you wrote:
Uhm, wow you missed the point. that was exactly the point Tim. Try not assuming you disagree with everything I say, before parsingit, and then sometimes you'll find out we agree. Hint: we agree on this one!I was claiming they are ghetto blindness products with respect to their quality, isolation, so often complete incompetent technical feature sets, and exclusionist principles of design. Their outrageous prices is just another way such incompetent and dishonestindividuals are sticking it to you, that's all. Take care, Sina -----Original Message-----From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of TroubleSent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 4:09 PM To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Google accessible search gone ghetto blindness products? How can you coin that phrase when most blind products cost more then is considered affordable. Sorry, forgot your still in college and get all this stuff bought for you. must be nice to have a sugar daddy! To those of us that have to actually pay for this junk. At 11:58 AM 8/18/2011, you wrote: >I technically define the accessible search as inaccessible, as it >simply subscribes to this idea, and to coin someone who might not >be on the list anymore, of: ghetto blindness products. > >the web is what it is, sorting websites by some artificial metric of >accessibility is not how I want to use the web, thanks anyways. > >Take care, >Sina > >-----Original Message----- >From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Jacobson >Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:45 AM >To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: RE: Google accessible search gone > >Seriously, don't you think we're throwing around the term >"inaccessible" a little loosely to say that the regular Google search is >inaccessible? While it >sounds nice, I've never used the so-called accessible search, always >using the regular search although I turned off the "instant" >part. While there are >things I would change if it were written specifically for me, I >would not have thought it to be inaccessible. > >Best regards, > >Steve Jacobson > > >On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:56:43 +0000, Katherine Moss wrote: > > >Well apparently not, or else we wouldn't be talking about it, would we? > > >From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Littlefield, Tyler> >Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:49 AM > >To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >Subject: Re: Google accessible search gone > > >As is google. > >On 8/18/2011 8:38 AM, Katherine Moss wrote: > > >I'm just saying that Bing's search is accessible by default, that's all. > > > > >From:> programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf >Of Jared Wright > >Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 12:40 AM > >To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Subject: Re: Google accessible search gone > > > > >C'mon, Ty, she's a Microsoft fangirl! And one of the most ardent > ones I've ever come in contact with, to be sure. But, hey, if >your tools accomplish the >tasks and all that... > >On 8/17/2011 10:36 PM, Littlefield, Tyler wrote: > > >>One thing you should do is switch from google to Bing. Their > searching is very good, but if you're trying to use Bing for SEO, >you might as >well stop >right... > >Microsoft Fanboy incoming. > > >On 8/17/2011 8:23 PM, Katherine Moss wrote: > > >One thing you should do is switch from google to Bing. Their > searching is very good, but if you're trying to use Bing for SEO, you >might as well stop right >there. It's an abomination. > > > > >From:> programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf >Of Dale Leavens > >Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 12:59 PM > >To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Subject: Re: Google accessible search gone > > > > >Typical of this damn computer and Windows Vista. Junk appearing > and functions changing randomly. > > >> >I am on google many times a day and haven't looked at my cookies in months!> > > > >Dale leavens. > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Bob Kennedy<mailto:intheshop@xxxxxxx> > > >To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 11:50 AM > > >Subject: Re: Google accessible search gone > > > > >If you don't turn it off, Google tries to guess what you are > searching for. And you won't necessarily hear what is being added to >your terms before you hit >enter. > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Dale Leavens<mailto:dleavens@xxxxxxx> > > >To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 11:25 AM > > >Subject: Re: Google accessible search gone > > > > >There seems to be a new link asking users of screen readers to > click to turn off Google Instant what ever that is. I haven't seen >that before today. > > > > >Dale leavens. > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Jacob Kruger<mailto:jacobk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >To: ProgrammingBlind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ProgrammingBlind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 12:18 AM > > >Subject: Google accessible search gone > > > > >The google accessible search interface, which was here: > > >http://labs.google.com/accessible/ > > > > >is now gone/inactive, and when looking for reasoning, I found the > following blog related to google's labs development/experiments, >so seems will just have >to go back to using the normal google search for now...: > > >http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-wood-behind-fewer-arrows.html > > > > >Pity, since the accessible search interface was quite a bit > cleaner, and also ranked search results a bit differently based on the >'cleanliness' of their >content, but anyway. > > >Jacob Kruger > >Blind Biker > >Skype: BlindZA > >'...fate had broken his body, but not his spirit...' > > > > >-- > > > > >Take care, > > >Ty > > >my website: > > >http://tds-solutions.net > > >my blog: > > >http://tds-solutions.net/blog > > >skype: st8amnd127 > > >My programs don't have bugs; they're randomly added features! > > > > > > > >-- > > > > >Take care, > > >Ty > > >my website: > > >http://tds-solutions.net > > >my blog: > > >http://tds-solutions.net/blog > > >skype: st8amnd127 > > >My programs don't have bugs; they're randomly added features! > > > > >__________ >View the list's information and change your settings at >//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind > >__________ >View the list's information and change your settings at >//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind __________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind __________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
__________View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
