Re: Versions of JFW

  • From: michael <michael.kizer944@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:11:52 -0500

jaws 9 had problems but 7 fine.

Dave Carlson wrote:
As I said, JAWS 10 was really buggy from the start and I completely skipped it. JAWS 11 is a much better product. It supports my theory that odd-numbered versions are inherently better. Dave
    ----- Original Message -----
    *From:* Julie Bentley <mailto:julie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    *To:* jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2009 09:32
    *Subject:* RE: Versions of JFW

    From what I am reading from all of your experiences with JAWS 11 I
    am thinking that until they get the bugs worked out that JAWS 10
    is much better.  What does every one think?

    Julie

--
JFW related links:
JFW homepage: http://www.freedomscientific.com/
Scripting mailing list: 
http://lists.the-jdh.com/listinfo.cgi/scriptography-the-jdh.com
JFW List instructions:
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
Alternative archives located at: 
http://n2.nabble.com/JAWS-for-Windows-f2145279.html

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: