Richard: On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 05:53:15 -0600, you wrote:
>On 1/4/2016 5:07 AM, Chris Bannister wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 09:32:36AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: >>> >>> A side question to Steve, "Is this post screen reader friendly?" >> >> That reminds me of the lecturers who say 'Hands up if you can't hear me >> at the back.' >> > >I thought it was a logical question ;} It was. Just because something isn't screenreader-friendly doesn't mean it's unreadable. It's not an bistable situation; more like picking a clam out of a shell, where sometimes there's more shell than clam, and sometimes you get no shell at all, just the meat, meaning, in this case, just plain text with no frills and markup code. But that's largely the purvue of the messaging client, not the screenreader. Screenreaders speak what text is presented to them, and in some cases try to distinguish what's important, or most important, to be spoken based on text attributes, mostly color attributes, or in the case of a dialog box, where the cursor is located--i.e., what control in said dialog on which the cursor is placed. Take Outlook, for instance. It knows what to do with HTML, where the email program I'm using does not, so if I get email that's full of HTML, I just throw it into a browser and I'm good for reading it over there. Luckily, very little email comes full of HTML these days unless it's store spam, and those I just discard automatically anyway, but even though my chosen email client doesn't handle HTML well, I have alternatives. That's one thing visually impaired computer users learn early in the game--there's almost always an alternative that will suit one's requirements. Read: "where there's a will, there's a way." That's the accessibility biz for ya, which is why I chose Debian, because it's low-overhead, no GUI required, unless I want or need one, which I don't.
