You can access most of it with a little bit less than ease with JAWS, but
with Window-Eyes, forget it. I used to run Norton as well. I bailed after
NAV 2005, when I had two very unsatisfactory tech calls to Symantec, which
were greatly compounded by the fact that what the support person was asking
me to click on could not be reached in any kind of straightforward manner
from the keyboard and had to be found with the JAWS cursor. I'll grant you
that most of the day to day stuff in NAV 2006 and older can be accessed
from JAWS by just using HTML features, but it's when things go wrong that
the rubber meets the road. If we could always live in the ordinary day to
day world, we wouldn't need Norton in the first place.
That being said, I will also say that accessibility is a hard thing to
judge because it means different things to different people. We really
haven't established a single standard for accessibilityk, and some people
think that if the program says anything at all, it's accessible, while
others will hold out for 100% access with no work-arounds. There is a
newer buzz word starting to make the rounds called usability, because there
is recognition that many of the "accessible" things are very very hard to
use because work-arounds are sometimes circuitous.
Where things get tricky is when a program can be accessed with one screen
reader but not another. Is it accessible or not. We could probably argue
about that all day long, but my point is this: If you design a program to
follow normal Windows conventions and Windows-style controls, then you
really don't have to worry about what screen reader someone is running.
Symantec apparently cares more about being jazzy and different than it
cares about who might or might not be able to use their stuff. The truth
is, there is a lot of stuff that they miss anyway, so I ditched them on
that basis.
73, de Lou K2LKK
At 01:07 PM 9/24/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>not true, their products have been accessible for the last 7 years that I've
>been using them. I know a chosen few say they're not accessible but I can
>only guess they're not willing to actually try it because it's very
>accessible unless there's something I'm missing. I've fun it ever since
>MacAfee let me down and have used almost every version right up to 2006. I
>think my first Norton version was 5.0 but I'd have to look, I still have it.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Louis Kim Kline" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 1:01 PM
>Subject: Re: Heads up: NortonAntivirus/Norton Internet Security 2007
>incompatib...
>
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > Actually, I'd like to see the NFB bring a lawsuit against Symantec like
> > they did to AOL a few years ago. Symantec, which has an attitude very
> > similar to our favorite radio company, Yaesu, has been asking for it for a
> > while.
> >
> > 73, de Lou K2LKK
> >
> >
> >
> > At 11:36 AM 9/24/2006 -0400, you wrote:
> >> Harvey and all:
> >>
> >>I don't know if it'd do any good, but maybe someone on the list would
> >>like
> >>to forward this info onto the tech people at Freedom Scientific, so that
> >>they could start designing a fix for the problem for the next major Jaws
> >>upgrade.
> >>
> >>In fact, now that I think of it, isn't it about time for Jaws 8.0 to come
> >>out?
> >>
> >>I thought the new upgrades came out in September, or at least sometime in
> >>the Fall of each year.
> >>
> >>Anyway, this is just a thought.
> >>
> >>73 from Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Harvey" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:24 AM
> >>Subject: Fw: Heads up: NortonAntivirus/Norton Internet Security 2007
> >>incompatib...
> >>
> >>
> >> > Keep in mind that this is one person's opinion, but I thought maybe
> >> > people
> >> > should see this who are thinking of buying Norton 2007. 73.
> >> > Harvey Heagy (N.5.H.A.U.)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hello, As a long time user of Symantec products, I am saddened to
> >> > inform
> >> > everyone that the new Norton 2007 products are no longer compatible
> >> > with
> >> > Jaws. After purchasing Norton Internet Security 2007, and performing
> >> > extensive testing on it, I've determined the following.
> >> > * A blind person is unable to activate the product without sighted
> >> > assistance. if Jaws is loaded, the Activation program immediately
> >> > quits,
> >> > rather than displaying its dialogs. This happens during the setup
> >> > process,
> >> > and causes your installation to be left in an unusable state. Fixing
> >> > this
> >> > requires sighted assistance to get through the activation process, at
> >>which
> >> > time the product (mostly) repairs itself.
> >> > * Once the product is installed, configuration is exceedingly
> >> > difficult.
> >>The
> >> > software is completely inaccessible from the keyboard, Unlike it
> >> > previous
> >> > versions the interface does not appear to take advantage of the Windows
> >> > built in html rendering facilities, instead using its own rendering
> >>method.
> >> > All configuration must be done with the jaws cursor, and Jaws's ability
> >> > to
> >> > see things like buttons is eratic at best. (admittedly, it may be
> >> > possible
> >> > to improve this via the use of a tool like Hotspot clicker, but getting
> >> > to
> >>a
> >> > state where you could would require heavy sighted intevention, and its
> >> > questionable as to whether it would be worth it.) * When the product
> >> > tries
> >> > to alert with Jaws loaded (at least on my machine), it instead blue
> >>screens
> >> > and reboots. I tested this with the standard antivirus test. Eicar?
> >> > (not sure on the spelling), which is a harmless .com file intended to
> >> > do
> >> > nothing but trigger antivirus products. (all products use this as a
> >> > standard, "hello world" test.)
> >> >
> >> > The combination of the three above points leads me to believe that
> >> > ongoing
> >> > persistance with this product would prove fruitless.
> >> > (Note: while I did not perform testing with Window Eyes, it has been my
> >> > experience in the past that WE has been less effective at accessing the
> >> > Norton interfaces when they were accessible, so I have no reason to
> >>believe,
> >> > and hence no inclination to try it, that the situation with 2007 would
> >> > be
> >> > any better, in fact, I suspect it would be dramaticly worse).
> >> >
> >> > This message is a heads up to advise others not to buy the Norton
> >> > 2007 products. if you are a Norton user, stick with 2006, as that is,
> >> > at
> >> > least, accessible. If not, then it looks like its now time to find a
> >> > new
> >> > package.
> >> >
> >
> > Louis Kim Kline
> > A.R.S. K2LKK
> > Home e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > Work e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > Work Telephone: (585) 697-5753
> >
Louis Kim Kline
A.R.S. K2LKK
Home e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Work e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Work Telephone: (585) 697-5753
|
