JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw.
Tim Ford
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 |
|
Marquette, Ed <ed.marquette@...>
Tim:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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. |
|
BeastlyTheos <theodorecooke@...>
So if we stop using their product, that sends a message that we're not
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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: |
|
Lisle, Ted (CHFS DMS)
Sounds Like 16 was too good for FS's own good. It combined solid performance with really useful new features (the expanded OCR capability particularly), and was a great match for new versions of Office. Smart tabs sound helpful, but I'm still with 16, and may stay a while longer.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
ted
-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marquette, Ed Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 2:57 AM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. 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. |
|
ptusing <ptusing@...>
Hi,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Regarding your points and those stated by Ed, I wonder what would happen if some one made a list of top 10 bugs and posted it? Please add---and I say the list should be formulated mostly off list, the known 1.5 year problem of JAWS 17 not working with MAGIC and adobe document cloud for some. I do give Freedom Scientific credit for not caving on that Adobe-related issue as the problem is an outstanding issue. Waiting for Adobe to do something MY point is that there are people out there smarter than I who could list something like a consolidated list of issues from which people could speak to V F O about and share with Large groups like agencies that purchase lots of JAWS versions. In case some one is wondering, I actually believe in the people there in Florida and Think they will eventually get it done. The problem is the waiting. Thanks to all. .
-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Lisle, Ted (CHFS DMS) Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 8:26 AM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. Sounds Like 16 was too good for FS's own good. It combined solid performance with really useful new features (the expanded OCR capability particularly), and was a great match for new versions of Office. Smart tabs sound helpful, but I'm still with 16, and may stay a while longer. ted -----Original Message----- From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marquette, Ed Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 2:57 AM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. 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. |
|
Lisle, Ted (CHFS DMS)
I agree. I remember the problems with Office and JAWS 11 and 12 running under XP, but relief came with 13, and the problems have not recurred. Also, I notice 16 can read protected documents again; that was a problem for a while. I know that, in an office environment, there are often good reasons for nailing down a document so it can't be altered.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Ted
-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of ptusing Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 10:42 AM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. Hi, Regarding your points and those stated by Ed, I wonder what would happen if some one made a list of top 10 bugs and posted it? Please add---and I say the list should be formulated mostly off list, the known 1.5 year problem of JAWS 17 not working with MAGIC and adobe document cloud for some. I do give Freedom Scientific credit for not caving on that Adobe-related issue as the problem is an outstanding issue. Waiting for Adobe to do something MY point is that there are people out there smarter than I who could list something like a consolidated list of issues from which people could speak to V F O about and share with Large groups like agencies that purchase lots of JAWS versions. In case some one is wondering, I actually believe in the people there in Florida and Think they will eventually get it done. The problem is the waiting. Thanks to all. . -----Original Message----- From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Lisle, Ted (CHFS DMS) Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 8:26 AM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. Sounds Like 16 was too good for FS's own good. It combined solid performance with really useful new features (the expanded OCR capability particularly), and was a great match for new versions of Office. Smart tabs sound helpful, but I'm still with 16, and may stay a while longer. ted -----Original Message----- From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marquette, Ed Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 2:57 AM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. 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. |
|
I can't, and won't try to, speak to the issues anyone might be having with JAWS 17 or 18. What I can speak to, though, is that very often, for any software, if you are using the "install over" method of installation or upgrade method a tiny problem will be introduced that shouldn't be (and not through the fault of the user - you don't control the installation/upgrade software). Â These can be carried along and unintentionally built upon until they bring things to a grinding halt. Tim said, "I completely uninstalled every piece of FS software, other than Open Book, and did a new install of JAWS 16 from the installation CD." Â I'm not saying that I know the answer to the question I'm about to pose, "What would have happened had you done the same with JAWS 17 or JAWS 18?" The "uninstall it all" reboot, and reinstall from scratch technique sometimes works to resolve what seem to be insoluble problems. Â If you want to be really thorough after the initial uninstall and reboot, you might want to run a utility such as Revo Uninstaller to be sure that there are no vestigial traces of the prior installations anywhere. Â Some uninstallers are much better than others about cleaning up after themselves. I've solved a number of problems with various JAWS installations for releases well before either 17 or 18 by taking this approach. Â It may solve nothing for all I know, but it's definitely worth a try to see whether it does. --
     ~ William James |
|
dennis
i too have been back to 16 because 17 and 18 have the problem of the vertual kercer shutting itself off all the time. while using the net or email or anything.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 12/9/2016 1:57 AM, Marquette, Ed wrote:
Tim: |
|
Dave...
support@...
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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: |
|
Dave...

toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Brian,
Â
While that approach is one way to clearly clean out
any residual issues, I'd be reluctant to use such a draconian approach, since it
would then leave me with no previous version to fall back on.
Â
I'd have to uninstall the latest, and go back to my
earliest (version 15) and reinstall each one again in sequence, in order that
the earlier versions would once again function. I might consider this if I have
an open stretch of time to take on a project like
this.
Â
Dave
Oregonian, woodworker, Engineer, Musician, and Pioneer Â
Â
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Vogel
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 07:53
Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent
flaw. I can't, and won't try to, speak to the issues anyone might be having with JAWS 17 or 18. What I can speak to, though, is that very often, for any software, if you are using the "install over" method of installation or upgrade method a tiny problem will be introduced that shouldn't be (and not through the fault of the user - you don't control the installation/upgrade software). Â These can be carried along and unintentionally built upon until they bring things to a grinding halt. Tim said, "I completely uninstalled every piece of FS software, other than Open Book, and did a new install of JAWS 16 from the installation CD." Â I'm not saying that I know the answer to the question I'm about to pose, "What would have happened had you done the same with JAWS 17 or JAWS 18?" The "uninstall it all" reboot, and reinstall from scratch technique sometimes works to resolve what seem to be insoluble problems. Â If you want to be really thorough after the initial uninstall and reboot, you might want to run a utility such as Revo Uninstaller to be sure that there are no vestigial traces of the prior installations anywhere. Â Some uninstallers are much better than others about cleaning up after themselves. I've solved a number of problems with various JAWS installations for releases well before either 17 or 18 by taking this approach. Â It may solve nothing for all I know, but it's definitely worth a try to see whether it does. --
     ~ William James |
|
Lisle, Ted (CHFS DMS)
I had to do just that during my misadventure with 11-12. As I recall, FS changed the video intercept about that time, so, once 11 or 12 was installed, 10 exhibited problems. The only remedy was to totally uninstall the newer version, thereby breaking the older version. Then it was install and repair time . It always worked, but was a hassle.  Ted  From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io]
On Behalf Of Dave Carlson  Brian,  While that approach is one way to clearly clean out any residual issues, I'd be reluctant to use such a draconian approach, since it would then leave me with no previous version to fall back on.  I'd have to uninstall the latest, and go back to my earliest (version 15) and reinstall each one again in sequence, in order that the earlier versions would once again function. I might consider this if I have an open stretch of time to take on a project like this.  Dave  Â
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Vogel Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 07:53 Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. Â I can't, and won't try to, speak to the issues anyone might be having with JAWS 17 or 18. What I can speak to, though, is that very often, for any software, if you are using the "install over" method of installation or upgrade method a tiny problem will be introduced that shouldn't be (and not through the fault of the user - you don't control the installation/upgrade software). Â These can be carried along and unintentionally built upon until they bring things to a grinding halt. Tim said, "I completely uninstalled every piece of FS software, other than Open Book, and did a new install of JAWS 16 from the installation CD." Â I'm not saying that I know the answer to the question I'm about to pose, "What would have happened had you done the same with JAWS 17 or JAWS 18?" The "uninstall it all" reboot, and reinstall from scratch technique sometimes works to resolve what seem to be insoluble problems. Â If you want to be really thorough after the initial uninstall and reboot, you might want to run a utility such as Revo Uninstaller to be sure that there are no vestigial traces of the prior installations anywhere. Â Some uninstallers are much better than others about cleaning up after themselves. I've solved a number of problems with various JAWS installations for releases well before either 17 or 18 by taking this approach. Â It may solve nothing for all I know, but it's definitely worth a try to see whether it does. --
     ~ William James |
|
Sieghard Weitzel <sieghard@...>
This must be happening for some people then because I can't confirm this at all with either Jaws 17 or 18. It may happen occasionally, but it must not be a lot since I can't even remember when I last had this problem. I had Jaws 17 and now have Jaws 18 on two laptops with Windows 10, my old Acer and my new Asus Zenbook, and I also had/have them on several desktops at my store which are still running Windows 7 and nowhere do I have a big problem with this.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Regards, Sieghard
-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of dennis Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 8:53 AM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. i too have been back to 16 because 17 and 18 have the problem of the vertual kercer shutting itself off all the time. while using the net or email or anything. On 12/9/2016 1:57 AM, Marquette, Ed wrote: Tim: |
|
Gudrun Brunot
Music to my ears, Tim. Thank you for taking the time and going to the
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
trouble to put this in a nutshell for us. I know I've been noticing problems with JAWS and not been able to figure out whether it was because I wasn't spending enough time reading the training material from FS or whether it was my configuration or JAWS settings. What I've had difficulty with is websites where I get stuck in some toolbar and told that I'm on a tab that I can't get out of, whether I tab, control-tab, or arrow around. All I can do is close the site and reopen it. That has been extremely irritating and time-consuming for a long time. Yeah for stability. Gudrun
-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Tim Ford Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 11:20 PM 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 |
|
Maria Campbell
I have also been very disappointed in the increasing instability of JAWS in Internet Explorer, especially since Edge isn't even supported at all at this time. I would be much happier to pay for greater future stability than for new features that I may never, or hardly ever use.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Maria Campbell lucky1@... Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive. --Dalai Lama
On 12/9/2016 2:59 PM, Gudrun Brunot wrote:
Music to my ears, Tim. Thank you for taking the time and going to the |
|
Jason White
Maria Campbell <lucky1inct@...> wrote:
I have also been very disappointed in the increasing instability of JAWS inIn my experience, both Firefox and Chrome work well with recent versions of JAWS. I've used them with quite complex Web applications. |
|
Melissa Stott <mstott69@...>
I can't reproduce this issue either.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Sieghard Weitzel Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 1:51 PM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. This must be happening for some people then because I can't confirm this at all with either Jaws 17 or 18. It may happen occasionally, but it must not be a lot since I can't even remember when I last had this problem. I had Jaws 17 and now have Jaws 18 on two laptops with Windows 10, my old Acer and my new Asus Zenbook, and I also had/have them on several desktops at my store which are still running Windows 7 and nowhere do I have a big problem with this. Regards, Sieghard -----Original Message----- From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of dennis Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 8:53 AM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. i too have been back to 16 because 17 and 18 have the problem of the vertual kercer shutting itself off all the time. while using the net or email or anything. On 12/9/2016 1:57 AM, Marquette, Ed wrote: Tim: |
|
Tim Ford
Hi All,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Don't bother trying to recreate the sluggish problems, if it hits you, you will know. Just consider yourselves lucky! Tim Ford
-----Original Message-----
From: Melissa Stott Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 2:03 PM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. I can't reproduce this issue either. -----Original Message----- From: Sieghard Weitzel Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 1:51 PM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. This must be happening for some people then because I can't confirm this at all with either Jaws 17 or 18. It may happen occasionally, but it must not be a lot since I can't even remember when I last had this problem. I had Jaws 17 and now have Jaws 18 on two laptops with Windows 10, my old Acer and my new Asus Zenbook, and I also had/have them on several desktops at my store which are still running Windows 7 and nowhere do I have a big problem with this. Regards, Sieghard -----Original Message----- From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of dennis Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 8:53 AM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. i too have been back to 16 because 17 and 18 have the problem of the vertual kercer shutting itself off all the time. while using the net or email or anything. On 12/9/2016 1:57 AM, Marquette, Ed wrote: Tim: |
|
Tom Behler
I have found Jaws to be increasingly unstable and sluggish with Firefox.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
At this point, I'm using Jaws 17 on a 64-bit Windows 7 computer. Even though my SMA covers me up to Jaws 18, I'm sticking with 17 for now since I'm not confident Jaws 18 will be any better at least at this point. Dr. Tom Behler from Michigan
-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Maria Campbell Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 4:11 PM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. I have also been very disappointed in the increasing instability of JAWS in Internet Explorer, especially since Edge isn't even supported at all at this time. I would be much happier to pay for greater future stability than for new features that I may never, or hardly ever use. Maria Campbell lucky1@... Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive. --Dalai Lama On 12/9/2016 2:59 PM, Gudrun Brunot wrote: Music to my ears, Tim. Thank you for taking the time and going to thelong time. and more of us. ram. It is a state government agency machine, with Semantic encryption andis good only up to version 17, and I just wont' pay for any more worthless upgrades.us. JAWS created the new "feature" of having an automatic reboot of JAWScomputers.
|
|
Carolyn Arnold <4carolyna@...>
What are smart tabs?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Bye for now, Carolyn
-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Lisle, Ted (CHFS DMS) Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 8:26 AM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. Sounds Like 16 was too good for FS's own good. It combined solid performance with really useful new features (the expanded OCR capability particularly), and was a great match for new versions of Office. Smart tabs sound helpful, but I'm still with 16, and may stay a while longer. ted -----Original Message----- From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marquette, Ed Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 2:57 AM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. 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. |
|
Russell Solowoniuk
Amen Maria! I totally agree! I'm finding that IE 11 continually freezes and
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
crashes a lot lately with Jaws... I think it's with both Jaws 17 and 18 though. I'd much rather have VFO work on these types of issues instead of things like having Jaws speak while moving the mouse! Just my opinion! Russell
-----Original Message-----
From: main@jfw.groups.io [mailto:main@jfw.groups.io] On Behalf Of Maria Campbell Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 2:11 PM To: main@jfw.groups.io Subject: Re: JAWS 17 and 18 have some basic inherent flaw. I have also been very disappointed in the increasing instability of JAWS in Internet Explorer, especially since Edge isn't even supported at all at this time. I would be much happier to pay for greater future stability than for new features that I may never, or hardly ever use. Maria Campbell lucky1@... Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive. --Dalai Lama On 12/9/2016 2:59 PM, Gudrun Brunot wrote: Music to my ears, Tim. Thank you for taking the time and going to theproblems with JAWS and not been able to figure out whether it was because I wasn'twas my configuration or JAWS settings. What I've had difficulty with iswebsites where I get stuck in some toolbar and told that I'm on a tab that I can'tthe time, nobody else seemed to be having the problem, and FS said they hadnot heard of anyone but me having the problems. Maybe I was the first, butnow it seems obvious the problem is steadily affecting more and more of us.it affects different computers at different rates of onset, like a diseasethat started slowly, and is now gathering steam as it spreads.ram. It is a state government agency machine, with Semantic encryption andwith the performance problems JAWS 17-18 have. My current license is good onlygo back to something like JAWS 7, maybe up to 10, but after that, FS wasof how unstable JAWS has become.new features for a while, and concentrate on stability of what JAWS alreadyhas, JAWS users need to send a clear message to FS, that we will be willing toto make that clear, that glitz is fine, but not at the expense of stable |
|