>From: jeffrey Pledger <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: compairing jaws to window eyes:
>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>Excellent points, David.  What it really all boils down to is user
>preference and having the end user try out the different screen
>readers.  JFW does some things better then Window Eyes and the reverse is
>also true.  I guess you can extend this analysis across the board when
>examining the available screen readers.  now when one can read my thoughts
>and perform them flawlessly without anything else getting i the way . . .
>Smile.
>Jeffrey Pledger
>President, AbleTV, inc. At 03:26 PM 8/1/01 -0400, you wrote:
> >I thought this was interesting and apro pos for our discussion on this
> >topic.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 2:43 AM
> >Subject: Re: Jaws version 4
> >
> >
> >OK, for those of you who are against scripts, I want everybody to think
> >of
> >one thing. Most of you don't use CakeWalk, but if you ever did, and you
> >used the Dancing Dots scripts for Cakewalk, called CakeTalking, you
> >would
> >understand just how powerful the JFW scripting language is. Yes, it is
> >hard
> >for the average user to learn, but I would challenge any other screen
> >reading program, including Windoweyes, to give you the level of access
> >CakeTalking gives you to cakeWalk 9. I'm telling you all now, that sold
> >it
> >for me. And I respect WindowEyes as a screen reader, even though i don't
> >own it. I am not against any screen reader, they all have their
> >strengths
> >and weaknesses, but don't downplay the JFW script language, it really
> >does
> >things that most other screen readers can never hope to do easily or at
> >all.




x