Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw.


Dave...
 

support@...

Dave
Oregonian, woodworker, Engineer, Musician, and Pioneer

----- Original Message -----
From: "BeastlyTheos" <theodorecooke@...>
To: <main@jfw.groups.io>
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 03:57
Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw.


So if we stop using their product, that sends a message that we're not
satisfied, but it doesn't let them know why we're not satisfied. How
do we specifically send the message that we're not satisfied because
of their development roadmap?

On 12/9/16, Marquette, Ed <ed.marquette@...> wrote:
Tim:

Thank you for your full and frank discussion of something that has
concerned
me for years.
In fact, a few years back, I started an on-line petition. The idea was to
send a message to Freedom Scientific that, until Freedom Scientific fixed
fundamental problems with its basic code (instead of loading the software
with new features) we, JAWS users, should stop buying "upgrades" -- a kind
of feature moratorium.
I hear echoes of my own posts -- posts that got me kicked off at least one
list.
Many of us experienced the problems with JAWS 13 that you are experiencing
with JAWS 17.
Well, my on-line petition didn't get very far, and Freedom Scientific has
continued to pile on the new features.
The problems with JAWS 17 may not simply be a further symptom of the
feature
disease, though it likely contributes. JAWS 17 is fundamentally
different,
as FS will admit. I try to use JAWS 17, but I find myself switching back
to
JAWS 16 quite frequently. There are an array of situations, particularly
in
Office 2013, where JAWS 16 is just better, reading prompts that JAWS 17
misses, reading the correct prompts instead of extraneous information, and
just working instead of going out to lunch. JAWS 17 also has an inherent
problem of corrupting some of its own files. Periodically, it starts
reading extraneous numbers. For instance, in JAWS 17, I am now typing (in
words and figures) the number thirteen 13. When I read back the number, I
hear thirteen sixty-five. The number is in superscript, but that is not
always necessary to confuse JAWS 17. JAWS 16 NEVER has this problem.
Of course the whole file layout is different. As I sadly discovered, the
Keyboard Manager in JAWS 17 is brain-damaged.
At the same time I bemoan the new features, it is some of these features
that keep me using JAWS. Even as badly as JAWS handles track changes,
when
I last checked NVDA didn't handle track changes at all.
ALAS! Perhaps I'll try NVDA again.
I was hoping JAWS 18 would fix the problems in JAWS 17. It looks like
that was a vain hope.


-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Tim Ford
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 1:20 AM
To: main@jfw.groups.io
Subject: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw.

Hi All,

I warn readers that my post here is a bit long, but for those of you who
want to help things improve with JAWS, I urge you to take the time to
consider my observations and opinions described below.

Back early on with JAWS 17, I reported to Freedom Scientific the
sluggishness I was experiencing. I also reported that on this list. At
the
time, nobody else seemed to be having the problem, and FS said they had
not
heard of anyone but me having the problems. Maybe I was the first, but
now
it seems obvious the problem is steadily affecting more and more of us.

I tried every update of JAWS 17, hoping it would fix the problems, but the
sluggishness became worse. I tried all beta test versions of JAWS 18, and
although it seemed a bit better, eventually J 18 was impacted to the point
that I quit using it.

I completely uninstalled every piece of FS software, other than Open Book,
and did a new install of JAWS 16 from the installation CD. I have not had
any of the sluggishness, now going on about 3 weeks.

It thus seems clear there is a fundamental problem with J 17 and 18, that
it
affects different computers at different rates of onset, like a disease
that
started slowly, and is now gathering steam as it spreads.

My machine is an HP laptop running Windows 7 Pro, 32 bit, with 6 GB of
ram.

It is a state government agency machine, with Semantic encryption and
anti-virus, and Office 2013. Somewhere in our experiences are the clues
towards a solution, and I hope FS figures it out soon.

For now, I will stay with J 16. If I decide that JAWS is not worth the
problems, I will go to NVDA, but not beat myself up any longer dealing
with
the performance problems JAWS 17-18 have. My current license is good only
up to version 17, and I just wont' pay for any more worthless upgrades.

From my vague recollection, to find good JAWS stability, we would have to
go
back to something like JAWS 7, maybe up to 10, but after that, FS was
focusing too much on developing new features, in order to justify us
continuing to work with them.

That said, I also appreciate that Windows and web design has become vastly
more complicated, to come up with all those nifty visual features, and it
has been a constant battle for screen readers to keep up. JAWS is losing
the battle.

My humble suggestion is that Freedom Scientific should accept that JAWS
basic stability and features have now become too unstable for most of us.
JAWS created the new "feature" of having an automatic reboot of JAWS when
the system senses a lockup. That "feature" is a complete acknowledgement
of
how unstable JAWS has become.

In order for a private vendor such as FS to be motivated to quit trying
new
features for a while, and concentrate on stability of what JAWS already
has,
JAWS users need to send a clear message to FS, that we will be willing to
accept less new glitz, in exchange for stability.

Maybe us JAWS users have to share some of the blame for allowing ourselves
to get excited about new JAWS versions, but we never were asked whether we
valued new features over stability. I suggest that it is now time for us
to
make that clear, that glitz is fine, but not at the expense of stable
performance for our day in and day out use of computers.

Thank you for considering my long rant.,

Tim Ford




----------------------------------------------------------------------
This E-mail message is confidential, is intended only for the named
recipients above and may contain information
that is privileged, attorney work product or otherwise protected by
applicable law. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender at 402-346-6000 and delete this
E-mail message.
Thank you.



Join main@jfw.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.