I'm getting sick and tired of manufacturers calling their access
"universal" when they think to add some feature that makes it work for some
disabled person.  It's universal only if it works for ALL
people.  Otherwise it is an enhanced feature making it more
user-friendly.  Nothing wrong with the latter - the more the better in my
opinion.  But universal it is definitely not.

John

At 08:03 AM 5/7/02 -0600, you wrote:
> >I wonder if they noticed the conflict in the idea of a mouse driven screen
> >reader.
>
>I think that while such a feature can certainly be useful to some people,
>it should hardly be called a screen reader.  If there is no speech access
>to graphical controls, or truly interactive access to text, you simply
>can't think of it as a screen reader -- maybe they should call it a text
>reader or something like that.
>
>-- Jim
>
>------------
>
>James A. Rebman
>
>Cognitive Levers Project
>Center for Life-Long Learning and Design
>Department of Computer Science
>University of Colorado, Boulder
>
>"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
>violent.  It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the
>opposite direction."
>
>  - E. F. Schumacher

John Gardner
Professor and Director, Science Access Project
Department of Physics
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331-6507
tel: (541) 737 3278
FAX: (541) 737 1683
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: http://dots.physics.orst.edu