Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Blind readers (was Re: Xnews dies on laptop with battery power)
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Eli the Bearded
Mar 16, 2012, 5:46:47 PM3/16/12
to
In news.software.readers,
Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
Why don't you just find one or more blind people on usenet and put
the question to them? alt.comp.blind-users has active traffic on
my server.
So now that I've added that crosspost, I'll ask the question. For
a blind reader of usenet, is it preferable for follow-ups to be
top posted or bottom posted (or it makes no difference) and why?
Elijah
------
who only knows that blind users don't like ASCII art
Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
Why don't you just find one or more blind people on usenet and put
the question to them? alt.comp.blind-users has active traffic on
my server.
So now that I've added that crosspost, I'll ask the question. For
a blind reader of usenet, is it preferable for follow-ups to be
top posted or bottom posted (or it makes no difference) and why?
Elijah
------
who only knows that blind users don't like ASCII art
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 16, 2012, 6:18:35 PM3/16/12
to
In message <eli$12031...@qz.little-neck.ny.us>, Eli the Bearded
<*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
[]
through a lot of text they've seen before, and don't have to do a lot of
scrolling. Therefore it's best to delete any part of the post you're
responding to which you aren't actually responding to, leaving only
enough to make it clear what you're responding to. And putting your
responses next to the bits you're responding to, not either all at the
end (bottom posting) or all at the top (top posting).
As to whether they prefer responses before or after what they're
responding to, that is probably split as much as in the sighted world:
some don't like having to scroll any previous text at all, and thus
prefer top posting; these are the ones who have a good memory and
remember what was in the previous post. I guess if the post you are
responding to was some time ago, then top-posting isn't the best, though
still delete as much of the previous post as possible.
--
J. P. Gilliver
The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent upon it, can
still ripen a bunch of grapes as it if had nothing else in the universe to do.
-Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer (1564-1642)
<*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
[]
>a blind reader of usenet, is it preferable for follow-ups to be
>top posted or bottom posted (or it makes no difference) and why?
What's more important to the ones I know is that they don't have to wade
>top posted or bottom posted (or it makes no difference) and why?
through a lot of text they've seen before, and don't have to do a lot of
scrolling. Therefore it's best to delete any part of the post you're
responding to which you aren't actually responding to, leaving only
enough to make it clear what you're responding to. And putting your
responses next to the bits you're responding to, not either all at the
end (bottom posting) or all at the top (top posting).
As to whether they prefer responses before or after what they're
responding to, that is probably split as much as in the sighted world:
some don't like having to scroll any previous text at all, and thus
prefer top posting; these are the ones who have a good memory and
remember what was in the previous post. I guess if the post you are
responding to was some time ago, then top-posting isn't the best, though
still delete as much of the previous post as possible.
>
>Elijah
>------
>who only knows that blind users don't like ASCII art
Or any unusual use of punctuation.
>Elijah
>------
>who only knows that blind users don't like ASCII art
--
J. P. Gilliver
The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent upon it, can
still ripen a bunch of grapes as it if had nothing else in the universe to do.
-Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer (1564-1642)
Brian Gaff
Mar 17, 2012, 4:55:43 AM3/17/12
to
For me, who tends to read threads once they have most of the posts in place,
top posting is easier than wading through complex quote comment, quote
comment or whole message then comment. If for example people had the time to
quote very sparingly, then its not too bad, but as most who bottom post
simple put the whole original thread so far at the top it is going to be
quite a hassle to cursor down to find the reply when you have no way of
knowing how long the quote is going to be when you start off.
I think also we tend to remember the comments and original post more than
the sighted so we really don't need a reminder every time over and over
and...
so top post is my choice for the above reasons.
Of course one issue is that if a group has both sighted and blind users, a
war often breaks out. I used to be a member of the TN Talk mail list, and
was asked to leave as I stood my ground on top posting in support of a the
admittedly minority few blind users there. My take oon this was that it was
far easier for a sighted person to dash around a post to see a bottom quote
than for a blind person to see a bottom comment or mixed up quote and
comment reply, so why the aggro.
However I was asked to leave and thus put my thoughts down and most of the
blind users left, I think to the detriment of the group content.
So it should not come to blows, but if I ever see the view where someone is
saying there is no excuse for top posting I tend to tell them they are
talking out of their arse.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Eli the Bearded" <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote in message
news:eli$12031...@qz.little-neck.ny.us...
top posting is easier than wading through complex quote comment, quote
comment or whole message then comment. If for example people had the time to
quote very sparingly, then its not too bad, but as most who bottom post
simple put the whole original thread so far at the top it is going to be
quite a hassle to cursor down to find the reply when you have no way of
knowing how long the quote is going to be when you start off.
I think also we tend to remember the comments and original post more than
the sighted so we really don't need a reminder every time over and over
and...
so top post is my choice for the above reasons.
Of course one issue is that if a group has both sighted and blind users, a
war often breaks out. I used to be a member of the TN Talk mail list, and
was asked to leave as I stood my ground on top posting in support of a the
admittedly minority few blind users there. My take oon this was that it was
far easier for a sighted person to dash around a post to see a bottom quote
than for a blind person to see a bottom comment or mixed up quote and
comment reply, so why the aggro.
However I was asked to leave and thus put my thoughts down and most of the
blind users left, I think to the detriment of the group content.
So it should not come to blows, but if I ever see the view where someone is
saying there is no excuse for top posting I tend to tell them they are
talking out of their arse.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Eli the Bearded" <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote in message
news:eli$12031...@qz.little-neck.ny.us...
Mike Yetto
Mar 17, 2012, 11:03:34 AM3/17/12
to
Brian Gaff <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes and having writ moves on.
top-posting with Outlook Express. The previous article is below
the sig delimiter and will be ignored by many users. To these
users, who are applying a legitimate preference, the post looks
to be an orphan with no context and the poster seems to be
talking out of their arse with and Outlook Express accent.
I don't like top-posting and only use it at work when I've
received an e-mail that has already been top-posted several
times. These are great fun to deal with, by the way. Trying to
correct my co-workers would be less that useless as many seem
proud of their ability to do things the quick and dirty way.
As for kicking someone out of the group, that seems a bit harsh,
but I will kill-file someone who insists on top-posting in a
thread that is otherwise interleaved or bottom-posted.
Mike "determine the conventions and act accordingly" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.
> So it should not come to blows, but if I ever see the view where someone is
>saying there is no excuse for top posting I tend to tell them they are
>talking out of their arse.
The post to which I am replying is an example what happens when
>saying there is no excuse for top posting I tend to tell them they are
>talking out of their arse.
top-posting with Outlook Express. The previous article is below
the sig delimiter and will be ignored by many users. To these
users, who are applying a legitimate preference, the post looks
to be an orphan with no context and the poster seems to be
talking out of their arse with and Outlook Express accent.
I don't like top-posting and only use it at work when I've
received an e-mail that has already been top-posted several
times. These are great fun to deal with, by the way. Trying to
correct my co-workers would be less that useless as many seem
proud of their ability to do things the quick and dirty way.
As for kicking someone out of the group, that seems a bit harsh,
but I will kill-file someone who insists on top-posting in a
thread that is otherwise interleaved or bottom-posted.
Mike "determine the conventions and act accordingly" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.
Steve Bonine
Mar 17, 2012, 11:48:34 AM3/17/12
to
On 3/17/12 3:55 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Of course one issue is that if a group has both sighted and blind users, a
> war often breaks out.
I care more about what a person posts than where they post it.
> Of course one issue is that if a group has both sighted and blind users, a
> war often breaks out.
tlvp
Mar 17, 2012, 11:05:01 PM3/17/12
to
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:55:43 -0000, Brian Gaff wrote:
> ... if I ever see the view where someone is
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
> ... if I ever see the view where someone is
> saying there is no excuse for top posting I tend to tell them they are
> talking out of their arse.
And right you are :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
> talking out of their arse.
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Brian Gaff
Mar 18, 2012, 4:33:30 AM3/18/12
to
Well of course this is up to you, if you do not want to listen to a view
simply because it does not comply with your particular prefs. In our case it
has little to do with personal prefs, more to do with necessity. The issue
of deliniators is an interesting one, as as you have said, Outlook express,
the one email client (along with Live mail) that blind people have access to
without any access issues, does it its way, and we have no idea how to make
this work for the others. Perhaps you can explain a simple way in which,
even though we top post, we can comply with the strict rules from the old
days on delineators.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Mike Yetto" <mye...@nycap.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrn201203171052...@may.eternal-september.org...
simply because it does not comply with your particular prefs. In our case it
has little to do with personal prefs, more to do with necessity. The issue
of deliniators is an interesting one, as as you have said, Outlook express,
the one email client (along with Live mail) that blind people have access to
without any access issues, does it its way, and we have no idea how to make
this work for the others. Perhaps you can explain a simple way in which,
even though we top post, we can comply with the strict rules from the old
days on delineators.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
news:slrn201203171052...@may.eternal-september.org...
Brian Gaff
Mar 18, 2012, 4:35:23 AM3/18/12
to
And having been around for many years, am quite immune to people flaming me.
I also have a barely perceptible tendency to reply to trolls, a worrying
trait which I need therapy for.
news:tokn61vnwksz.40mn5rhmhlvy$.dlg@40tude.net...
I also have a barely perceptible tendency to reply to trolls, a worrying
trait which I need therapy for.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"tlvp" <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote in message
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
news:tokn61vnwksz.40mn5rhmhlvy$.dlg@40tude.net...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 18, 2012, 5:58:11 AM3/18/12
to
In message <jk46kn$2il$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
commenting on that aspect of your postings!
>the one email client (along with Live mail) that blind people have access to
>without any access issues, does it its way, and we have no idea how to make
I'd seriously question that. My blind friends use Eudora (which she uses
via JAWS), and Eudora OSE (which is Thunderbird really, and he accesses
via Window-Eyes). But I think several other newsreaders are in use by
the blind, and I think JAWS and Window-Eyes have configuration files -
or whatever they're called - for several of the more popular ones.
>this work for the others. Perhaps you can explain a simple way in which,
>even though we top post, we can comply with the strict rules from the old
>days on delineators.
>
>Brian
>
Well, I'd say the best way to tame Outlook Express is to install (it's
free, though probably worth sending a donation, but there's no
obligation to do so) OE-QuoteFix; read about it at
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/description.html
, and download it at
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/downloads.php
(I've de-framed those addresses for you).
But in the meantime, if you just delete the delimiter from your
signature - or, if you want a separator, amend it so that it is
something other than dash-dash-space on a single line - that will at
last allow people to keep the post you are following up in _their_
followups.
--
J. P. Gilliver
I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much
more *interesting* to live not knowing than to have answers which might be
wrong. - Richard Feynman, in 1981 Horizon interview
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>Well of course this is up to you, if you do not want to listen to a view
>simply because it does not comply with your particular prefs. In our case it
>has little to do with personal prefs, more to do with necessity. The issue
>of deliniators is an interesting one, as as you have said, Outlook express,
Interesting as well in that you've now got someone other than me
>Well of course this is up to you, if you do not want to listen to a view
>simply because it does not comply with your particular prefs. In our case it
>has little to do with personal prefs, more to do with necessity. The issue
>of deliniators is an interesting one, as as you have said, Outlook express,
commenting on that aspect of your postings!
>the one email client (along with Live mail) that blind people have access to
>without any access issues, does it its way, and we have no idea how to make
via JAWS), and Eudora OSE (which is Thunderbird really, and he accesses
via Window-Eyes). But I think several other newsreaders are in use by
the blind, and I think JAWS and Window-Eyes have configuration files -
or whatever they're called - for several of the more popular ones.
>this work for the others. Perhaps you can explain a simple way in which,
>even though we top post, we can comply with the strict rules from the old
>days on delineators.
>
>Brian
>
free, though probably worth sending a donation, but there's no
obligation to do so) OE-QuoteFix; read about it at
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/description.html
, and download it at
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/downloads.php
(I've de-framed those addresses for you).
But in the meantime, if you just delete the delimiter from your
signature - or, if you want a separator, amend it so that it is
something other than dash-dash-space on a single line - that will at
last allow people to keep the post you are following up in _their_
followups.
--
J. P. Gilliver
I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much
more *interesting* to live not knowing than to have answers which might be
wrong. - Richard Feynman, in 1981 Horizon interview
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 18, 2012, 11:19:43 AM3/18/12
to
Brian Gaff <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Well of course this is up to you, if you do not want to listen to a view
>simply because it does not comply with your particular prefs.
Mike Yetto has not commented on even one of his particular preferences.
>Well of course this is up to you, if you do not want to listen to a view
>simply because it does not comply with your particular prefs.
This is Mike Yetto we are talking about, the guy who used to post using
Runic characters and not the Latin alphabet, who used random squiggles
for punctuation, and his line boundary of choice was holely Swiss cheese.
It took a long time to persuade him otherwise, but he finally began to
post to Usenet in a conventional manner.
Why did Mike stop posting according to his personal preferences and start
posting in a conventional manner? Because Mike decided to make things as
easy as possible for the reader to read and understand what he writes. He
realized that what he was writing was intended to be read by the entire
Usenet community, and not just a mere handful of people who coincidentally
preferred Runic/squiggle/Swiss cheese.
>In our case it has little to do with personal prefs, more to do with
>necessity.
necessity.
>The issue of deliniators is an interesting one, as as you have said,
>Outlook express, the one email client (along with Live mail) that blind
>people have access to without any access issues, does it its way, and
>we have no idea how to make this work for the others.
I have no idea how top posting could possibly accomodate a blind user,
>The issue of deliniators is an interesting one, as as you have said,
>Outlook express, the one email client (along with Live mail) that blind
>people have access to without any access issues, does it its way, and
>we have no idea how to make this work for the others.
as a blind user is stuck with the software's reading order, which would
mean that no context is provided for the most recent remarks. A blind
user lacks access to the visual clues in the article and would thus be
in a worse position than a sighted user, who'd have an easier time
skipping back and forth.
Worse still, Outlook Express was notorious for creating long lines, then
breaking them in lieu of reformatting them. If done in a quote, the broken
part of the long line has a different quote level. If the blind user's
reading software has some way of distinguishing quoted author by quote
level, that quoted paragraph would appear to be written by two different
authors.
Knowing how Outlook Express behaves, that makes it an even worse software
choice for a blind user than a sighted user.
>Perhaps you can explain a simple way in which, even though we top post,
>we can comply with the strict rules from the old days on delineators.
your .sigfile, then included full text quotes from prior articles. Clearly,
this is something you did yesterday, so through your own actions, you
indicate that use of a .sig delimiter is a current practice.
If you don't know how to use your software to put the .sig delimiter
at the end of your article, indicating that what follows is your personal
.sigfile and nothing else, then turn off the feature that includes your
.sigfile automatically. That's the simplest way to stop putting the
.sig delimiter in the middle of the article and not at the end.
Now, I've deleted your .sig delimiter and your .sigfile as I'm supposed
to do! These are not supposed to be quoted when I quote your article
in followup. I also deleted the quoted .sigfile quoted in your precursor
article in my followup.
And, I reformatted the quote you broke in followup of your own precursor
article, but I left it on the bottom.
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 18, 2012, 11:21:46 AM3/18/12
to
Brian Gaff <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>And having been around for many years, am quite immune to people flaming me.
He didn't flame you. He agreed with you.
>And having been around for many years, am quite immune to people flaming me.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 18, 2012, 11:40:32 AM3/18/12
to
In message <jk4uef$ffa$1...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
<a...@chinet.com> writes:
[]
I think Brian's argument is this:
1. Blind folk have to scroll through the old text to get at the new
text, in a bottom-posted message.
2. Blind folk, of necessity, have better memory for what they've seen
before than sighted folk.
Though I don't accept Brian's argument, I do understand it. (Well, I do
accept it where he's objecting to people who quote an entire article
without snipping any.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it's
the part that I do understand." - Mark Twain
<a...@chinet.com> writes:
[]
>I have no idea how top posting could possibly accomodate a blind user,
>as a blind user is stuck with the software's reading order, which would
>mean that no context is provided for the most recent remarks. A blind
>user lacks access to the visual clues in the article and would thus be
>in a worse position than a sighted user, who'd have an easier time
>skipping back and forth.
[]
>as a blind user is stuck with the software's reading order, which would
>mean that no context is provided for the most recent remarks. A blind
>user lacks access to the visual clues in the article and would thus be
>in a worse position than a sighted user, who'd have an easier time
>skipping back and forth.
I think Brian's argument is this:
1. Blind folk have to scroll through the old text to get at the new
text, in a bottom-posted message.
2. Blind folk, of necessity, have better memory for what they've seen
before than sighted folk.
Though I don't accept Brian's argument, I do understand it. (Well, I do
accept it where he's objecting to people who quote an entire article
without snipping any.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it's
the part that I do understand." - Mark Twain
Mike Yetto
Mar 18, 2012, 1:22:35 PM3/18/12
to
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> writes and having writ moves on.
for several levels of quoting. That and I find it to be easier
and quicker to scan than 75 or 80 characters.
>This is Mike Yetto we are talking about, the guy who used to post using
>Runic characters and not the Latin alphabet, who used random squiggles
>for punctuation, and his line boundary of choice was holely Swiss cheese.
Runic? Are you referring to UTF-8? My occasional use of
Russian? The cut and paste of Greek which is common when dealing
with andrew?
All punctuation is random squiggles, or are you referring to
regular expressions?
And my text is quad left with a line length of no more than 65
characters, URLs notwithstanding.
>It took a long time to persuade him otherwise, but he finally began to
>post to Usenet in a conventional manner.
It took even longer to bring Usenet over to my conventions. I had
to change mine to do so.
>Why did Mike stop posting according to his personal preferences and start
>posting in a conventional manner? Because Mike decided to make things as
>easy as possible for the reader to read and understand what he writes. He
>realized that what he was writing was intended to be read by the entire
>Usenet community, and not just a mere handful of people who coincidentally
>preferred Runic/squiggle/Swiss cheese.
Know that I strive to be a curmudgeon and you are not helping.
mike "I don't have to take this standing up" Yetto
>Brian Gaff <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>Well of course this is up to you, if you do not want to listen to a view
>>simply because it does not comply with your particular prefs.
>Mike Yetto has not commented on even one of his particular preferences.
I think I once mentioned my 65 character line length preference as allowing
>>Well of course this is up to you, if you do not want to listen to a view
>>simply because it does not comply with your particular prefs.
>Mike Yetto has not commented on even one of his particular preferences.
for several levels of quoting. That and I find it to be easier
and quicker to scan than 75 or 80 characters.
>This is Mike Yetto we are talking about, the guy who used to post using
>Runic characters and not the Latin alphabet, who used random squiggles
>for punctuation, and his line boundary of choice was holely Swiss cheese.
Russian? The cut and paste of Greek which is common when dealing
with andrew?
All punctuation is random squiggles, or are you referring to
regular expressions?
And my text is quad left with a line length of no more than 65
characters, URLs notwithstanding.
>It took a long time to persuade him otherwise, but he finally began to
>post to Usenet in a conventional manner.
to change mine to do so.
>Why did Mike stop posting according to his personal preferences and start
>posting in a conventional manner? Because Mike decided to make things as
>easy as possible for the reader to read and understand what he writes. He
>realized that what he was writing was intended to be read by the entire
>Usenet community, and not just a mere handful of people who coincidentally
>preferred Runic/squiggle/Swiss cheese.
mike "I don't have to take this standing up" Yetto
Brian Gaff
Mar 18, 2012, 1:24:51 PM3/18/12
to
Why have you done this when all the answers are already in the original
thread?
Brian
--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user.
thread?
Brian
--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user.
"Eli the Bearded" <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote in message
news:eli$12031...@qz.little-neck.ny.us...
news:eli$12031...@qz.little-neck.ny.us...
Mike Yetto
Mar 18, 2012, 1:26:13 PM3/18/12
to
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes and having writ moves on.
>Though I don't accept Brian's argument, I do understand it. (Well, I do
>accept it where he's objecting to people who quote an entire article
>without snipping any.)
Trimming and top-posting are different things. Although
top-posting does make trimming easier to skip.
Mike "mixing top-posting with anything else is unacceptable" Yetto
>In message <jk4uef$ffa$1...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
><a...@chinet.com> writes:
>[]
>>I have no idea how top posting could possibly accomodate a blind user,
>>as a blind user is stuck with the software's reading order, which would
>>mean that no context is provided for the most recent remarks. A blind
>>user lacks access to the visual clues in the article and would thus be
>>in a worse position than a sighted user, who'd have an easier time
>>skipping back and forth.
>[]
>I think Brian's argument is this:
>1. Blind folk have to scroll through the old text to get at the new
>text, in a bottom-posted message.
>2. Blind folk, of necessity, have better memory for what they've seen
>before than sighted folk.
However, their memory for what they haven't seen yet is the same.
><a...@chinet.com> writes:
>[]
>>I have no idea how top posting could possibly accomodate a blind user,
>>as a blind user is stuck with the software's reading order, which would
>>mean that no context is provided for the most recent remarks. A blind
>>user lacks access to the visual clues in the article and would thus be
>>in a worse position than a sighted user, who'd have an easier time
>>skipping back and forth.
>[]
>I think Brian's argument is this:
>1. Blind folk have to scroll through the old text to get at the new
>text, in a bottom-posted message.
>2. Blind folk, of necessity, have better memory for what they've seen
>before than sighted folk.
>Though I don't accept Brian's argument, I do understand it. (Well, I do
>accept it where he's objecting to people who quote an entire article
>without snipping any.)
top-posting does make trimming easier to skip.
Mike "mixing top-posting with anything else is unacceptable" Yetto
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 18, 2012, 2:04:06 PM3/18/12
to
In message <slrn201203181323...@may.eternal-september.org>,
reader will never see whether there's been any sensible trimming,
perhaps.
probably makes me unacceptable to you (-:]
Dilbert], 1998-12-12)
Mike Yetto <mye...@nycap.invalid> writes:
>J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes and having
>writ moves on.
>>In message <jk4uef$ffa$1...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
>><a...@chinet.com> writes:
>>[]
>>>I have no idea how top posting could possibly accomodate a blind user,
>>>as a blind user is stuck with the software's reading order, which would
>>>mean that no context is provided for the most recent remarks. A blind
>>>user lacks access to the visual clues in the article and would thus be
>>>in a worse position than a sighted user, who'd have an easier time
>>>skipping back and forth.
>>[]
>>I think Brian's argument is this:
>
>>1. Blind folk have to scroll through the old text to get at the new
>>text, in a bottom-posted message.
>>2. Blind folk, of necessity, have better memory for what they've seen
>>before than sighted folk.
>
>However, their memory for what they haven't seen yet is the same.
But, if they've read the previous post, they have seen it.
>J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes and having
>writ moves on.
>>In message <jk4uef$ffa$1...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
>><a...@chinet.com> writes:
>>[]
>>>I have no idea how top posting could possibly accomodate a blind user,
>>>as a blind user is stuck with the software's reading order, which would
>>>mean that no context is provided for the most recent remarks. A blind
>>>user lacks access to the visual clues in the article and would thus be
>>>in a worse position than a sighted user, who'd have an easier time
>>>skipping back and forth.
>>[]
>>I think Brian's argument is this:
>
>>1. Blind folk have to scroll through the old text to get at the new
>>text, in a bottom-posted message.
>>2. Blind folk, of necessity, have better memory for what they've seen
>>before than sighted folk.
>
>However, their memory for what they haven't seen yet is the same.
>
>>Though I don't accept Brian's argument, I do understand it. (Well, I do
>>accept it where he's objecting to people who quote an entire article
>>without snipping any.)
>
>Trimming and top-posting are different things. Although
>top-posting does make trimming easier to skip.
I'm not sure what you mean there: top-posting makes it likely that the
>>Though I don't accept Brian's argument, I do understand it. (Well, I do
>>accept it where he's objecting to people who quote an entire article
>>without snipping any.)
>
>Trimming and top-posting are different things. Although
>top-posting does make trimming easier to skip.
reader will never see whether there's been any sensible trimming,
perhaps.
>
>Mike "mixing top-posting with anything else is unacceptable" Yetto
I rarely top-post at all, even when following-up a top-post. [That
>Mike "mixing top-posting with anything else is unacceptable" Yetto
probably makes me unacceptable to you (-:]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Nothing is more dangerous than a boss with a spreadsheet. (Scott Adams [via
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Dilbert], 1998-12-12)
Andrew Hodgson
Mar 18, 2012, 3:06:09 PM3/18/12
to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:46:47 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
[...]
>So now that I've added that crosspost, I'll ask the question. For
>a blind reader of usenet, is it preferable for follow-ups to be
>top posted or bottom posted (or it makes no difference) and why?
I think I am somewhat on my own in that I like interleaved or bottom
posted articles. I do have some vision however, and I use this to
find where the relevant text is. A good news reader also helps in
this regard, and unfortunately good programs that work with speech
software are getting very few and far between. For example, I am
using an ancient version of Agent because the newer versions don't
allow the cursor to interact correctly with the text, which means you
get little to no control over what is read to you, so you end up
reading the entirety of the post from top to bottom, which makes top
posting easier to deal with.
On all the blind mailing lists I am on, there is always top posting,
and people quite often vehemently oppose people who bottom quote, so
far as it is in the rules of a couple of lists not to use interleaving
or bottom quoting.
Everyone at work uses Outlook and top posting, I did go through a
stage of using interleaved posting for a while, but stopped
eventually. I do still revert back if there are a lot of points I
need to address in the email. Actually someone at work said that the
way I posted was very quaint, and reminded them of how email used to
be twenty or so years ago!
Andrew.
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
[...]
>So now that I've added that crosspost, I'll ask the question. For
>a blind reader of usenet, is it preferable for follow-ups to be
>top posted or bottom posted (or it makes no difference) and why?
posted articles. I do have some vision however, and I use this to
find where the relevant text is. A good news reader also helps in
this regard, and unfortunately good programs that work with speech
software are getting very few and far between. For example, I am
using an ancient version of Agent because the newer versions don't
allow the cursor to interact correctly with the text, which means you
get little to no control over what is read to you, so you end up
reading the entirety of the post from top to bottom, which makes top
posting easier to deal with.
On all the blind mailing lists I am on, there is always top posting,
and people quite often vehemently oppose people who bottom quote, so
far as it is in the rules of a couple of lists not to use interleaving
or bottom quoting.
Everyone at work uses Outlook and top posting, I did go through a
stage of using interleaved posting for a while, but stopped
eventually. I do still revert back if there are a lot of points I
need to address in the email. Actually someone at work said that the
way I posted was very quaint, and reminded them of how email used to
be twenty or so years ago!
Andrew.
Mike Yetto
Mar 18, 2012, 4:07:23 PM3/18/12
to
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes and having writ moves on.
>In message <slrn201203181323...@may.eternal-september.org>,
>Mike Yetto <mye...@nycap.invalid> writes:
>>J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes and having
>>writ moves on.
>In message <slrn201203181323...@may.eternal-september.org>,
>Mike Yetto <mye...@nycap.invalid> writes:
>>J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes and having
>>writ moves on.
>>>I think Brian's argument is this:
>>
>>>1. Blind folk have to scroll through the old text to get at the new
>>>text, in a bottom-posted message.
>>>2. Blind folk, of necessity, have better memory for what they've seen
>>>before than sighted folk.
>>
>>However, their memory for what they haven't seen yet is the same.
>But, if they've read the previous post, they have seen it.
Did you read any of my previous posts? I was referring to readers
>>
>>>1. Blind folk have to scroll through the old text to get at the new
>>>text, in a bottom-posted message.
>>>2. Blind folk, of necessity, have better memory for what they've seen
>>>before than sighted folk.
>>
>>However, their memory for what they haven't seen yet is the same.
>But, if they've read the previous post, they have seen it.
who enter a discussion after several posts have been placed as
answers to questions below them in the message. This is what they
haven't yet read and cannot remember.
>>
>>>Though I don't accept Brian's argument, I do understand it. (Well, I do
>>>accept it where he's objecting to people who quote an entire article
>>>without snipping any.)
>>
>>Trimming and top-posting are different things. Although
>>top-posting does make trimming easier to skip.
>I'm not sure what you mean there: top-posting makes it likely that the
>reader will never see whether there's been any sensible trimming,
>perhaps.
the top (top-posting) there is no incentive to trim the remaining
post since it is just inconsequential history at that point. The
post then grows uncontrollably similar to the way a trash pile or
cancer might.
>>
>>Mike "mixing top-posting with anything else is unacceptable" Yetto
>I rarely top-post at all, even when following-up a top-post. [That
>probably makes me unacceptable to you (-:]
top-post or trimming everything that came before it, you are
creating or adding to the same mess. So, yes, that is
unacceptable to me.
Mike "you are free to accept it, however" Yetto
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 18, 2012, 8:21:08 PM3/18/12
to
In message <slrn201203181556...@may.eternal-september.org>,
Mike Yetto <mye...@nycap.invalid> writes:
[]
[]
[]
part; even then, I trim most of it.
[]
take this latest crackpot idea onboard without making it fight for acceptance
like all the previous ones'. - Richard Caley, 2002 February 11 00:02:28
Mike Yetto <mye...@nycap.invalid> writes:
[]
>>But, if they've read the previous post, they have seen it.
>
>Did you read any of my previous posts? I was referring to readers
>who enter a discussion after several posts have been placed as
>answers to questions below them in the message. This is what they
>haven't yet read and cannot remember.
>
You are preaching to the converted here; I don't like top-posting.
>
>Did you read any of my previous posts? I was referring to readers
>who enter a discussion after several posts have been placed as
>answers to questions below them in the message. This is what they
>haven't yet read and cannot remember.
>
[]
>When someone replies to a fairly lengthy post and simply adds text at
>the top (top-posting) there is no incentive to trim the remaining
>post since it is just inconsequential history at that point. The
>post then grows uncontrollably similar to the way a trash pile or
>cancer might.
>
Agreed, and I like the analogy.
>the top (top-posting) there is no incentive to trim the remaining
>post since it is just inconsequential history at that point. The
>post then grows uncontrollably similar to the way a trash pile or
>cancer might.
>
[]
>If you reply to a top-post at the bottom without correcting the
>top-post or trimming everything that came before it, you are
I usually do, unless I'm also replying to some points in the previous
>top-post or trimming everything that came before it, you are
part; even then, I trim most of it.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
one can't go from `supposed crackpot ideas have been right before' to `we should
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
take this latest crackpot idea onboard without making it fight for acceptance
like all the previous ones'. - Richard Caley, 2002 February 11 00:02:28
tlvp
Mar 18, 2012, 11:03:29 PM3/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 09:58:11 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> But in the meantime, if you just delete the delimiter from your
> signature - or, if you want a separator, amend it so that it is
> something other than dash-dash-space on a single line - that will at
> last allow people to keep the post you are following up in _their_
> followups.
Alternatively, put your *post* at the top, before what it's in response to,
> But in the meantime, if you just delete the delimiter from your
> signature - or, if you want a separator, amend it so that it is
> something other than dash-dash-space on a single line - that will at
> last allow people to keep the post you are following up in _their_
> followups.
but put your *sig* (complete with [hyphen] [hyphen] [space] [newline] on a
line by itself before it) at the bottom, so that any further reply will cut
off only your sig and not the context you're replying to :-) .
(Always looking for new ways to skin a cat :-) .) Cheers, -- tlvp
tlvp
Mar 18, 2012, 11:19:58 PM3/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:21:46 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Brian Gaff <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>And having been around for many years, am quite immune to people flaming me.
>
> He didn't flame you. He agreed with you.
I guess he didn't see it that way :-) . But thanks for having noticed: I
> Brian Gaff <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>And having been around for many years, am quite immune to people flaming me.
>
> He didn't flame you. He agreed with you.
certainly was intending to be in support of / agreement with his position.
[Well, some folks are just always spoiling for a fight, I suppose. (Sigh!)]
tlvp
Mar 18, 2012, 11:29:46 PM3/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:06:09 +0000, Andrew Hodgson wrote:
> I think I am somewhat on my own in that I like interleaved or bottom
> posted articles.
Personally, same here -- unless it's for a top posted "Bravo" when I'm in
> I think I am somewhat on my own in that I like interleaved or bottom
> posted articles.
full and unequivocal agreement with the prior poster's viewpoint or idea.
> I do have some vision however, and I use this to
> find where the relevant text is. A good news reader also helps in
body of a long sequence of accreted posts.
> this regard, and unfortunately good programs that work with speech
> software are getting very few and far between. For example, I am
> using an ancient version of Agent because the newer versions don't
> allow the cursor to interact correctly with the text, which means you
> get little to no control over what is read to you, so you end up
> reading the entirety of the post from top to bottom, which makes top
> posting easier to deal with.
>
> On all the blind mailing lists I am on, there is always top posting,
can remember at what point a thread is now, it's easiest and least
time-consuming to dive right in with the latest response. For others
(late-comers, newcomers, occasional visitors), not so much.
> and people quite often vehemently oppose people who bottom quote, so
> far as it is in the rules of a couple of lists not to use interleaving
> or bottom quoting.
>
> Everyone at work uses Outlook and top posting, I did go through a
> stage of using interleaved posting for a while, but stopped
> eventually. I do still revert back if there are a lot of points I
> need to address in the email. Actually someone at work said that the
> way I posted was very quaint, and reminded them of how email used to
> be twenty or so years ago!
new young Turks wouldn't have the foggiest inkling that there might be
better practices about than the ones they've come to know on their own.
Steve Bonine
Mar 18, 2012, 11:47:28 PM3/18/12
to
On 3/18/12 2:06 PM, Andrew Hodgson wrote:
> Actually someone at work said that the
> way I posted was very quaint, and reminded them of how email used to
> be twenty or so years ago!
Thanks very much for the chuckle.
> Actually someone at work said that the
> way I posted was very quaint, and reminded them of how email used to
> be twenty or so years ago!
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
tlvp
Mar 19, 2012, 1:14:44 AM3/19/12
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:58:03 -0500, Pepi wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:40:32 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> 2. Blind folk, of necessity, have better memory for what they've seen
>> before than sighted folk.
>
> Are you redefining the definition of the word "blind"?
No: of "seen" :-) .
> ... is there some
> intricate meaning of the word I do not grasp?
Yes. He's using "seen", as is often done, to mean "encountered".
HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:40:32 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> 2. Blind folk, of necessity, have better memory for what they've seen
>> before than sighted folk.
>
No: of "seen" :-) .
> ... is there some
> intricate meaning of the word I do not grasp?
Yes. He's using "seen", as is often done, to mean "encountered".
HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
Mike Yetto
Mar 19, 2012, 8:09:00 AM3/19/12
to
Pepi <pe...@egg.nog> writes and having writ moves on.
Not mixing top-posting with anything else.
Mike "but not universally acceptable" Yetto
>On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:26:13 -0400, Mike Yetto wrote:
>> Mike "mixing top-posting with anything else is unacceptable" Yetto
>And the opposite is? ;)
>> Mike "mixing top-posting with anything else is unacceptable" Yetto
Not mixing top-posting with anything else.
Mike "but not universally acceptable" Yetto
Gene E. Bloch
Mar 19, 2012, 2:53:03 PM3/19/12
to
On 3/18/2012, tlvp posted:
I have often enough heard blind people use it that way, and quite
unselfconsciously, at that.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
unselfconsciously, at that.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Message has been deleted
Mike Yetto
Mar 19, 2012, 6:01:03 PM3/19/12
to
Gene E Bloch <bloc...@someplace.invalid> writes and having writ moves on.
Everyone quotes what other people say on Usenet.
Mike "I never said they didn't" Yetto
Mike "I never said they didn't" Yetto
Mike Yetto
Mar 19, 2012, 6:04:34 PM3/19/12
to
Pepi <pe...@egg.nog> writes and having writ moves on.
>was rather strange.
Not as strange as braille keys on a drive-up ATM.
Mike "and no more common" Yetto
>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:14:44 -0400, tlvp wrote:
>> Yes. He's using "seen", as is often done, to mean "encountered".
>Yes, I got that, but in the context it was written, you have to admit, it
>> Yes. He's using "seen", as is often done, to mean "encountered".
>was rather strange.
Not as strange as braille keys on a drive-up ATM.
Mike "and no more common" Yetto
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 19, 2012, 7:06:36 PM3/19/12
to
In message <utGdnd0b_ZZXP_rS...@giganews.com>, Pepi
>contradictions in normal day-to-day conversations (e.g., can a paraplegic
>walk a mile in my shoes?), but in my native tongue, it's not.
What is your native tongue? It is certainly very common in English, at
least the use of "seen" to mean "encountered" is, and I think similar
apparent contradictions aren't at all unusual. In this case, I didn't
even think what I was typing _was_ odd until you pointed it out, and
then I had to see someone else's post before I actually realised.
Blind folk I know use "seen" to mean "encountered" more or less as much
as the rest of us: also "see" for "understand", as in "I see."
<pe...@egg.nog> writes:
>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:14:44 -0400, tlvp wrote:
>
>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:14:44 -0400, tlvp wrote:
>
>> Yes. He's using "seen", as is often done, to mean "encountered".
>
>
>Yes, I got that, but in the context it was written, you have to admit, it
>was rather strange. Perhaps it's common in English to use such
>contradictions in normal day-to-day conversations (e.g., can a paraplegic
>walk a mile in my shoes?), but in my native tongue, it's not.
What is your native tongue? It is certainly very common in English, at
least the use of "seen" to mean "encountered" is, and I think similar
apparent contradictions aren't at all unusual. In this case, I didn't
even think what I was typing _was_ odd until you pointed it out, and
then I had to see someone else's post before I actually realised.
Blind folk I know use "seen" to mean "encountered" more or less as much
as the rest of us: also "see" for "understand", as in "I see."
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
tlvp
Mar 20, 2012, 6:56:18 AM3/20/12
to
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:06:36 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> Blind folk I know use "seen" to mean "encountered" more or less as much
> as the rest of us: also "see" for "understand", as in "I see."
Encounter, understand, realize, meet, blind and sighted alike, in my
> Blind folk I know use "seen" to mean "encountered" more or less as much
> as the rest of us: also "see" for "understand", as in "I see."
experience, often use "see" to express these verbs, and more:
"Ah," I might tell an acquaintance who's just phoned me up, once I become
aware that his hoarse. flu-induced raspiness of throat is gone, "I see
you're getting over your flu, eh?" (Of course I *hear* that, but ... .)
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 20, 2012, 8:58:29 AM3/20/12
to
Gene E. Bloch <bloc...@someplace.invalid> wrote:
>On 3/18/2012, tlvp posted:
>>On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:58:03 -0500, Pepi wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:40:32 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>2. Blind folk, of necessity, have better memory for what they've seen
>>>>before than sighted folk.
>>>Are you redefining the definition of the word "blind"?
>>No: of "seen" :-) .
>>>... is there some intricate meaning of the word I do not grasp?
>>Yes. He's using "seen", as is often done, to mean "encountered".
>On 3/18/2012, tlvp posted:
>>On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:58:03 -0500, Pepi wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:40:32 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>2. Blind folk, of necessity, have better memory for what they've seen
>>>>before than sighted folk.
>>>Are you redefining the definition of the word "blind"?
>>No: of "seen" :-) .
>>>... is there some intricate meaning of the word I do not grasp?
>>Yes. He's using "seen", as is often done, to mean "encountered".
>I have often enough heard blind people use it that way, and quite
>unselfconsciously, at that.
So you've heard what they've seen, both references to written communication.
>unselfconsciously, at that.
Why haven't we touched, tasted, and smelled how the blind communicate?
Touch might be a better word, if Braille is involved.
Gene E. Bloch
Mar 20, 2012, 2:08:45 PM3/20/12
to
On 3/19/2012, Mike Yetto posted:
elevators, restrooms, etc, so that they would know where to read them
by touch.
There are also beeps at pedestrian walk signals around here that I have
never been able to understand, even with the help of an explanation by
a vision-impaired friend.
I'm not sure that the sighted community is doing what would actually
*help* the impaired.
> Pepi <pe...@egg.nog> writes and having writ moves on.
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:14:44 -0400, tlvp wrote:
>>> Yes. He's using "seen", as is often done, to mean "encountered".
>> Yes, I got that, but in the context it was written, you have to admit, it
>> was rather strange.
> Not as strange as braille keys on a drive-up ATM.
> Mike "and no more common" Yetto
I have often wondered how the blind could see the Braille keys at
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:14:44 -0400, tlvp wrote:
>>> Yes. He's using "seen", as is often done, to mean "encountered".
>> Yes, I got that, but in the context it was written, you have to admit, it
>> was rather strange.
> Not as strange as braille keys on a drive-up ATM.
> Mike "and no more common" Yetto
elevators, restrooms, etc, so that they would know where to read them
by touch.
There are also beeps at pedestrian walk signals around here that I have
never been able to understand, even with the help of an explanation by
a vision-impaired friend.
I'm not sure that the sighted community is doing what would actually
*help* the impaired.
Gene E. Bloch
Mar 20, 2012, 2:12:35 PM3/20/12
to
On 3/20/2012, tlvp posted:
Perhaps not so new.
E.g., video and wit/wise are cognates from the Indo-European root
"weid-", to see.
E.g., video and wit/wise are cognates from the Indo-European root
"weid-", to see.
Andrew Hodgson
Mar 20, 2012, 2:42:57 PM3/20/12
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:29:46 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:06:09 +0000, Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>
>> I think I am somewhat on my own in that I like interleaved or bottom
>> posted articles.
[...]
>> I do have some vision however, and I use this to
>> find where the relevant text is. A good news reader also helps in
>
>Right. Whether visual or aural, one needs reliable guidance through the
>body of a long sequence of accreted posts.
Here is probably where the issue is. If you are reading a message
from top to bottom using a reader, you quite often get lost in the
flow because people don't use the arrow keys to move through the
message. For example, here is what happens if you read from top to
bottom using the auto read feature:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:06:09 +0000, Andrew Hodgson wrote:
> I think I am somewhat on my own in that I like interleaved or bottom
> posted articles. Personally, same here -- unless it's for a top posted "Bravo" when I'm in
full and unequivocal agreement with the prior poster's viewpoint or
idea. > I do have some vision however, and I use this to
> find where the relevant text is. A good news reader also helps in Right. Whether visual or aural, one needs reliable guidance through the
body of a long sequence of accreted posts. > this regard, and
unfortunately good programs that work with speech
> software are getting very few and far between. For example, I am
> using an ancient version of Agent because the newer versions don't
> allow the cursor to interact correctly with the text, which means you
> get little to no control over what is read to you, so you end up
> reading the entirety of the post from top to bottom, which makes top
> posting easier to deal with.
I think you can understand that especially where you comment in the
middle of a sentence, it can get really difficult to understand where
the original text is and where the reply is. This only increases as
the conversation depth increases. Added to that the fact that a lot
of reading software will truncate multiple punctuation, or people can
filter it out entirely, makes for a difficult time.
Actually one example of top and bottom posting I used was in Facebook.
If you have a Facebook message, you see the messages starting from the
original message, and then going down as you would in Usenet style
quoting. Blind people don't see seem to mind that at all. The
differences there is that it is very obvious in Facebook terms where
the original messages stops and the new message begins, and the new
message doesn't quote anything from the original.
[...]
going back several messages so I can read prior postings without going
through all the Outlook dross to get there.
Andrew.
wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:06:09 +0000, Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>
>> I think I am somewhat on my own in that I like interleaved or bottom
>> posted articles.
>> I do have some vision however, and I use this to
>> find where the relevant text is. A good news reader also helps in
>
>Right. Whether visual or aural, one needs reliable guidance through the
>body of a long sequence of accreted posts.
from top to bottom using a reader, you quite often get lost in the
flow because people don't use the arrow keys to move through the
message. For example, here is what happens if you read from top to
bottom using the auto read feature:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:06:09 +0000, Andrew Hodgson wrote:
> I think I am somewhat on my own in that I like interleaved or bottom
> posted articles. Personally, same here -- unless it's for a top posted "Bravo" when I'm in
full and unequivocal agreement with the prior poster's viewpoint or
idea. > I do have some vision however, and I use this to
> find where the relevant text is. A good news reader also helps in Right. Whether visual or aural, one needs reliable guidance through the
body of a long sequence of accreted posts. > this regard, and
unfortunately good programs that work with speech
> software are getting very few and far between. For example, I am
> using an ancient version of Agent because the newer versions don't
> allow the cursor to interact correctly with the text, which means you
> get little to no control over what is read to you, so you end up
> reading the entirety of the post from top to bottom, which makes top
> posting easier to deal with.
middle of a sentence, it can get really difficult to understand where
the original text is and where the reply is. This only increases as
the conversation depth increases. Added to that the fact that a lot
of reading software will truncate multiple punctuation, or people can
filter it out entirely, makes for a difficult time.
Actually one example of top and bottom posting I used was in Facebook.
If you have a Facebook message, you see the messages starting from the
original message, and then going down as you would in Usenet style
quoting. Blind people don't see seem to mind that at all. The
differences there is that it is very obvious in Facebook terms where
the original messages stops and the new message begins, and the new
message doesn't quote anything from the original.
[...]
>>
>> On all the blind mailing lists I am on, there is always top posting,
>
>For people who've been following the threads from their inception, and who
>can remember at what point a thread is now, it's easiest and least
>time-consuming to dive right in with the latest response. For others
>(late-comers, newcomers, occasional visitors), not so much.
This is an issue even on these mailing lists, quite often I end up
>> On all the blind mailing lists I am on, there is always top posting,
>
>For people who've been following the threads from their inception, and who
>can remember at what point a thread is now, it's easiest and least
>time-consuming to dive right in with the latest response. For others
>(late-comers, newcomers, occasional visitors), not so much.
going back several messages so I can read prior postings without going
through all the Outlook dross to get there.
Andrew.
tlvp
Mar 20, 2012, 3:23:30 PM3/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:42:57 +0000, Andrew Hodgson illustrated what can
happen "if you read from top to bottom using the auto read feature: ..." --
and it was brutally ugly, I must admit.
Perhaps the auto read feature should be trained to reflect interruptions in
flow as indicated by [newline] characters and intervening blank lines. How
else can a post consisting of well-placed, interleaved commentary be
rendered in comprehensible fashion to any who cannot literally see it?
happen "if you read from top to bottom using the auto read feature: ..." --
and it was brutally ugly, I must admit.
Perhaps the auto read feature should be trained to reflect interruptions in
flow as indicated by [newline] characters and intervening blank lines. How
else can a post consisting of well-placed, interleaved commentary be
rendered in comprehensible fashion to any who cannot literally see it?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 20, 2012, 4:18:57 PM3/20/12
to
tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:42:57 +0000, Andrew Hodgson illustrated what can
>happen "if you read from top to bottom using the auto read feature: ..." --
>and it was brutally ugly, I must admit.
>Perhaps the auto read feature should be trained to reflect interruptions in
>flow as indicated by [newline] characters and intervening blank lines. How
>else can a post consisting of well-placed, interleaved commentary be
>rendered in comprehensible fashion to any who cannot literally see it?
Why can't it recognize quoting levels? That's what they're for.
>On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:42:57 +0000, Andrew Hodgson illustrated what can
>happen "if you read from top to bottom using the auto read feature: ..." --
>and it was brutally ugly, I must admit.
>Perhaps the auto read feature should be trained to reflect interruptions in
>flow as indicated by [newline] characters and intervening blank lines. How
>else can a post consisting of well-placed, interleaved commentary be
>rendered in comprehensible fashion to any who cannot literally see it?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 20, 2012, 5:16:33 PM3/20/12
to
In message <jk9utl$ja6$4...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
<a...@chinet.com> writes:
[]
others, (b) widely used by everyone - sighted and blind alike - to mean
encounter/perceive. (Also, I don't think you'd say "what you've touched"
- one blind person might read a post using a Braille terminal, and
another with speech synthesis.)
-Thomas Henry Huxley, biologist (1825-1895)
<a...@chinet.com> writes:
[]
>So you've heard what they've seen, both references to written communication.
>Why haven't we touched, tasted, and smelled how the blind communicate?
>Touch might be a better word, if Braille is involved.
Because, in English at least, "see" is (a) easier to say than any of the
>Why haven't we touched, tasted, and smelled how the blind communicate?
>Touch might be a better word, if Braille is involved.
others, (b) widely used by everyone - sighted and blind alike - to mean
encounter/perceive. (Also, I don't think you'd say "what you've touched"
- one blind person might read a post using a Braille terminal, and
another with speech synthesis.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
-Thomas Henry Huxley, biologist (1825-1895)
Gene E. Bloch
Mar 20, 2012, 5:18:55 PM3/20/12
to
On 3/20/2012, Pepi posted:
> supposed to stand still and wait, and it becomes a much faster ticking
> sound when you can do like the chicken did.
The question I haven't resolved is which direction to cross in.
These signals are at intersections where the traffic is never stopped
simultaneously in both directions, so if, for example, you cross the
North-South street while there is North-South traffic, you might die.
To me the beeps don't seem to indicate which way to go.
Of course, I hope that it's just that I am being obtuse and therefore
missing the obvious (to others!) cues.
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:08:45 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> There are also beeps at pedestrian walk signals around here that I have
>> never been able to understand, even with the help of an explanation by a
>> vision-impaired friend.
> Over here those are simple: A slow, steady ticking sound when you're
>> There are also beeps at pedestrian walk signals around here that I have
>> never been able to understand, even with the help of an explanation by a
>> vision-impaired friend.
> supposed to stand still and wait, and it becomes a much faster ticking
> sound when you can do like the chicken did.
The question I haven't resolved is which direction to cross in.
These signals are at intersections where the traffic is never stopped
simultaneously in both directions, so if, for example, you cross the
North-South street while there is North-South traffic, you might die.
To me the beeps don't seem to indicate which way to go.
Of course, I hope that it's just that I am being obtuse and therefore
missing the obvious (to others!) cues.
Gene E. Bloch
Mar 20, 2012, 5:20:37 PM3/20/12
to
On 3/20/2012, Pepi posted:
> see". ;-)
Or maybe I should have assumed that the readers already know that.
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:12:35 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> E.g., video and wit/wise are cognates from the Indo-European root
>> "weid-", to see.
> Perhaps you also should have explained that "video" is Latin for "I
>> E.g., video and wit/wise are cognates from the Indo-European root
>> "weid-", to see.
> see". ;-)
Or maybe I should have assumed that the readers already know that.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 20, 2012, 5:33:53 PM3/20/12
to
In message <9srvdd...@mid.individual.net>, Gene E. Bloch
the same.)
(Do US ATMs have loop or headphone outlet yet? Here - UK - most of them
have the hardware i. e. a headphone socket, but AFAIK none drive it
yet.)
[]
for them, but otherwise, you're right. I asked my blind friends because
I saw that McDonalds had at least tried, by putting Braille on various
doors, if there was a standard height for such things - and they tell me
there isn't. So it's not as useful as it might be.
[]
the question of who to ask. Perhaps we need a standard (e. g. for height
for Braille signage on doors - I'd suggest somewhere between waist and
chest height, so accessible to wheelchair users) imposed; even if not
ideal, and whatever is chosen someone would object, at least we'd have a
standard. Ideally international, but at least of one country started
one, others might follow.
<bloc...@someplace.invalid> writes:
>On 3/19/2012, Mike Yetto posted:
[]
>On 3/19/2012, Mike Yetto posted:
>> Not as strange as braille keys on a drive-up ATM.
(As someone else has said, that's probably just that they make them all
the same.)
(Do US ATMs have loop or headphone outlet yet? Here - UK - most of them
have the hardware i. e. a headphone socket, but AFAIK none drive it
yet.)
[]
>I have often wondered how the blind could see the Braille keys at
>elevators, restrooms, etc, so that they would know where to read them
>by touch.
Well, in elevators (lifts) I suppose there's a reasonably common place
>elevators, restrooms, etc, so that they would know where to read them
>by touch.
for them, but otherwise, you're right. I asked my blind friends because
I saw that McDonalds had at least tried, by putting Braille on various
doors, if there was a standard height for such things - and they tell me
there isn't. So it's not as useful as it might be.
[]
>I'm not sure that the sighted community is doing what would actually
>*help* the impaired.
>
Well, at least it's trying. It could perhaps ask more, though there's
>*help* the impaired.
>
the question of who to ask. Perhaps we need a standard (e. g. for height
for Braille signage on doors - I'd suggest somewhere between waist and
chest height, so accessible to wheelchair users) imposed; even if not
ideal, and whatever is chosen someone would object, at least we'd have a
standard. Ideally international, but at least of one country started
one, others might follow.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 20, 2012, 5:37:22 PM3/20/12
to
In message <9ssahv...@mid.individual.net>, Gene E. Bloch
cone on the bottom, obviously only for the direction that's safe to
cross. I don't know if these were just being proposed or have actually
been implemented (or have been implemented but were then found to fail
in service or something); I've never seen one, anyway.
<bloc...@someplace.invalid> writes:
>On 3/20/2012, Pepi posted:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:08:45 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>
>>> There are also beeps at pedestrian walk signals around here that I have
>>> never been able to understand, even with the help of an explanation by a
>>> vision-impaired friend.
>
>> Over here those are simple: A slow, steady ticking sound when you're
>>supposed to stand still and wait, and it becomes a much faster ticking
>>sound when you can do like the chicken did.
Here in UK, they beep when you can cross, silent otherwise.
>On 3/20/2012, Pepi posted:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:08:45 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>
>>> There are also beeps at pedestrian walk signals around here that I have
>>> never been able to understand, even with the help of an explanation by a
>>> vision-impaired friend.
>
>> Over here those are simple: A slow, steady ticking sound when you're
>>supposed to stand still and wait, and it becomes a much faster ticking
>>sound when you can do like the chicken did.
>
>The question I haven't resolved is which direction to cross in.
>
>These signals are at intersections where the traffic is never stopped
>simultaneously in both directions, so if, for example, you cross the
>North-South street while there is North-South traffic, you might die.
>
>To me the beeps don't seem to indicate which way to go.
>
>Of course, I hope that it's just that I am being obtuse and therefore
>missing the obvious (to others!) cues.
>
I've seen/heard about ones where the box that beeps also has a vibrating
>The question I haven't resolved is which direction to cross in.
>
>These signals are at intersections where the traffic is never stopped
>simultaneously in both directions, so if, for example, you cross the
>North-South street while there is North-South traffic, you might die.
>
>To me the beeps don't seem to indicate which way to go.
>
>Of course, I hope that it's just that I am being obtuse and therefore
>missing the obvious (to others!) cues.
>
cone on the bottom, obviously only for the direction that's safe to
cross. I don't know if these were just being proposed or have actually
been implemented (or have been implemented but were then found to fail
in service or something); I've never seen one, anyway.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 20, 2012, 5:43:47 PM3/20/12
to
In message <7O-dnXW3SvKlf_XS...@giganews.com>, Pepi
<pe...@egg.nog> writes:
[]
>What I meant was, day-to-day conversations about--or with, as the case
>may be--a blind person, refering to them as someone who's "seen someting
>before".
>
>I would have used a different word, in this case I'm pretty sure I
>would've used--since we are talking about reading--read, since that's
>what they are doing even though they are using their fingers rather than
>their eyes.
As I've said, in English we (including most blind people I know) _do_
use "see" metaphorically.
>
>In other cases, sure, it's pretty common over here, too, to occasionally
>use contradicting words. Although, perhaps not as common as in English.
>
>And "over here", that's Sweden.
Are the words for "see" and "read" of more equal difficulty in Swedish?
In English, "see" (and "saw") can be said with minimal mouth movement,
whereas "read" (present and past tense) do require slightly more.
(Whether this is actually the reason we use the former so much, I don't
know.)
<pe...@egg.nog> writes:
[]
>What I meant was, day-to-day conversations about--or with, as the case
>may be--a blind person, refering to them as someone who's "seen someting
>before".
>
>I would have used a different word, in this case I'm pretty sure I
>would've used--since we are talking about reading--read, since that's
>what they are doing even though they are using their fingers rather than
>their eyes.
As I've said, in English we (including most blind people I know) _do_
use "see" metaphorically.
>
>In other cases, sure, it's pretty common over here, too, to occasionally
>use contradicting words. Although, perhaps not as common as in English.
>
>And "over here", that's Sweden.
Are the words for "see" and "read" of more equal difficulty in Swedish?
In English, "see" (and "saw") can be said with minimal mouth movement,
whereas "read" (present and past tense) do require slightly more.
(Whether this is actually the reason we use the former so much, I don't
know.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 20, 2012, 6:00:26 PM3/20/12
to
In message <jkaonh$cp8$1...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
quoting levels; I know lots of users who say they dislike this and find
it gimmicky, but for sighted folk it's less necessary because the
structure _is_ more obvious. I suppose a blind equivalent would be
something that used a different voice, or pitch, or speed, for the
different levels of quoting, but I'm not aware of any that does. It'd
probably need a different kind of coding file to the normal
JAWS/WindowEyes/whatever ones, possibly even a special news/mail reader
for the blind, which I think isn't really desirable, as it's better to
use standard packages. I suppose something that interpreted greater than
signs at the beginning of a line in a special way might do, since they
tend not to occur anywhere else, but even that would be different from
most other such requirements for code.
prolong!" - Monty Python
<a...@chinet.com> writes:
>tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:42:57 +0000, Andrew Hodgson illustrated what can
>>happen "if you read from top to bottom using the auto read feature: ..." --
>>and it was brutally ugly, I must admit.
>
>>Perhaps the auto read feature should be trained to reflect interruptions in
>>flow as indicated by [newline] characters and intervening blank lines. How
>>else can a post consisting of well-placed, interleaved commentary be
>>rendered in comprehensible fashion to any who cannot literally see it?
Yes, that example does seem to not preserve line endings.
>tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:42:57 +0000, Andrew Hodgson illustrated what can
>>happen "if you read from top to bottom using the auto read feature: ..." --
>>and it was brutally ugly, I must admit.
>
>>Perhaps the auto read feature should be trained to reflect interruptions in
>>flow as indicated by [newline] characters and intervening blank lines. How
>>else can a post consisting of well-placed, interleaved commentary be
>>rendered in comprehensible fashion to any who cannot literally see it?
>
>Why can't it recognize quoting levels? That's what they're for.
Some news (and mail) software for sighted people colourcodes different
>Why can't it recognize quoting levels? That's what they're for.
quoting levels; I know lots of users who say they dislike this and find
it gimmicky, but for sighted folk it's less necessary because the
structure _is_ more obvious. I suppose a blind equivalent would be
something that used a different voice, or pitch, or speed, for the
different levels of quoting, but I'm not aware of any that does. It'd
probably need a different kind of coding file to the normal
JAWS/WindowEyes/whatever ones, possibly even a special news/mail reader
for the blind, which I think isn't really desirable, as it's better to
use standard packages. I suppose something that interpreted greater than
signs at the beginning of a line in a special way might do, since they
tend not to occur anywhere else, but even that would be different from
most other such requirements for code.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Mr. Notlob, there's nothing wrong with you that an expensive operation can't
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
prolong!" - Monty Python
tlvp
Mar 20, 2012, 8:22:29 PM3/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:12:35 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> ... video and wit/wise are cognates from the Indo-European root
> "weid-", to see.
Ah, I see: bearing witness to the wit and wisdom of the Bloch, eh :-) ?
> ... video and wit/wise are cognates from the Indo-European root
> "weid-", to see.
Ah, I see: bearing witness to the wit and wisdom of the Bloch, eh :-) ?
Gene E. Bloch
Mar 20, 2012, 8:45:05 PM3/20/12
to
On 3/20/2012, tlvp posted:
I've always been interested in language-related stuff...
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:12:35 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> ... video and wit/wise are cognates from the Indo-European root
>> "weid-", to see.
> Ah, I see: bearing witness to the wit and wisdom of the Bloch, eh :-) ?
> Cheers, -- tlvp
Shhh - you'll blow my cover!
>> ... video and wit/wise are cognates from the Indo-European root
>> "weid-", to see.
> Ah, I see: bearing witness to the wit and wisdom of the Bloch, eh :-) ?
> Cheers, -- tlvp
I've always been interested in language-related stuff...
tlvp
Mar 21, 2012, 1:03:26 AM3/21/12
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:45:05 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> I've always been interested in language-related stuff...
If your dad was, too, that'd really make you a chip off the old Bloch,
> I've always been interested in language-related stuff...
then, wouldn't it :-) ?
Cheers, -- tlvp
Shmuel Metz
Mar 20, 2012, 6:20:45 PM3/20/12
to
In <LcZSKZJx...@soft255.demon.co.uk>, on 03/20/2012
at 09:16 PM, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
said:
>Because, in English at least, "see" is (a) easier to say than any of
>the others, (b) widely used by everyone - sighted and blind alike -
>to mean encounter/perceive.
To add to the confusion, it's common in English to say "I heard" in
reference to something that the speaker read.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
at 09:16 PM, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
said:
>Because, in English at least, "see" is (a) easier to say than any of
>the others, (b) widely used by everyone - sighted and blind alike -
>to mean encounter/perceive.
reference to something that the speaker read.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Mike Yetto
Mar 21, 2012, 12:21:34 PM3/21/12
to
Pepi <pe...@egg.nog> writes and having writ moves on.
>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:04:34 -0400, Mike Yetto wrote:
>> Not as strange as braille keys on a drive-up ATM.
>I'm pretty convinced that has to do with concerns for their own wallet
>> Not as strange as braille keys on a drive-up ATM.
>rather than concern for the blind. Must be chaper to manufacture all keys
>the same, than one special set for the blind.
Add to the braille keys a single method of communicating with the
user that is solely visual and the braille seems a useless
gesture on a walk-up ATM as well.
Mike "just like braille brake lights" Yetto
Gene E. Bloch
Mar 21, 2012, 1:47:04 PM3/21/12
to
On 3/20/2012, tlvp posted:
Tua culpa for providing me with the opportunity to say that :-)
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:45:05 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> I've always been interested in language-related stuff...
> If your dad was, too, that'd really make you a chip off the old Bloch,
> then, wouldn't it :-) ?
> Cheers, -- tlvp
Except that he wasn't a silicon-based life form.
>> I've always been interested in language-related stuff...
> If your dad was, too, that'd really make you a chip off the old Bloch,
> then, wouldn't it :-) ?
> Cheers, -- tlvp
Tua culpa for providing me with the opportunity to say that :-)
tlvp
Mar 21, 2012, 2:23:22 PM3/21/12
to
straight man -- I takes whatever I gets, and rolls with it. As must we all.
Cheers, -- tlvp :-)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
tlvp
Mar 21, 2012, 5:12:20 PM3/21/12
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:18:55 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> ...
generators. Standing where you'd stand to cross one of two perpendicular
streets, you'd hear the "OK" signal meant for the other street only very
faintly, while the "OK" signal for the street you were hoping to cross
would reach you loud and clear -- and likewise, of course, for the other.
Cheers, -- tlvp
> ...
> The question I haven't resolved is which direction to cross in.
>
The few of these things I've met (all in Japan) had very directional sound
>
generators. Standing where you'd stand to cross one of two perpendicular
streets, you'd hear the "OK" signal meant for the other street only very
faintly, while the "OK" signal for the street you were hoping to cross
would reach you loud and clear -- and likewise, of course, for the other.
Cheers, -- tlvp
Message has been deleted
Prisca
Mar 21, 2012, 5:32:26 PM3/21/12
to
On 20/03/2012 21:37, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> I've seen/heard about ones where the box that beeps also has a vibrating
> cone on the bottom, obviously only for the direction that's safe to
> cross. I don't know if these were just being proposed or have actually
> been implemented (or have been implemented but were then found to fail
> in service or something); I've never seen one, anyway.
The vibrating cones have been around for years. We have them on our
> I've seen/heard about ones where the box that beeps also has a vibrating
> cone on the bottom, obviously only for the direction that's safe to
> cross. I don't know if these were just being proposed or have actually
> been implemented (or have been implemented but were then found to fail
> in service or something); I've never seen one, anyway.
local crossing as it is a triangular island with 3 exits. They don't
beep at all as this could cause confusion as to which way is safe to
cross. You press the button and hold your hand under the box to find the
cone. When this vibrates, or in the case of our local ones, spins, it is
safe to cross in that direction. According to our local council, they
cost around £1600 pounds each to install, so they don't advertise the
fact that they are there in case they get vandalised. They are a bit of
a pain in winter as you can't feel them spinning with gloves on!
Cheers
Deddajay
Gene E. Bloch
Mar 21, 2012, 5:51:58 PM3/21/12
to
On 3/21/2012, tlvp posted:
That's a clue. Next time I'm near one, I'll see[1] if works here (the
San Franciso, CA, Peninsula, i.e., Silicon Valley).
[1] Find out :-)
San Franciso, CA, Peninsula, i.e., Silicon Valley).
[1] Find out :-)
Gene E. Bloch
Mar 21, 2012, 5:52:40 PM3/21/12
to
On 3/21/2012, Pepi posted:
> Never mind...
OK, now I see what you mean :-)
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:20:37 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> Or maybe I should have assumed that the readers already know that.
> I meant since we are already talking about 'see' elsewhere, oh, well.
>> Or maybe I should have assumed that the readers already know that.
> Never mind...
OK, now I see what you mean :-)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 21, 2012, 8:02:35 PM3/21/12
to
In message <J7ydnRhh_et33_fS...@giganews.com>, Pepi
<pe...@egg.nog> writes:
>
>se = see
>
>läsa = read
>
>(The funny little character 'ä' is in Swedish pronounced somewhat like
>'ai' in 'pair', or 'fair'.)
Ah, so "lai-sen" - clearly related to the German "lesen", for read. So
I'd say "read" is even less easy to say than "see", so that doesn't
explain why you use "see" only in the literal sense.
>words when it comes to 'see' vs. 'saw'. A 'saw' can make a buzzing noise.
>We have the same in Swedish, actually: 'se' (present) and 'såg' (past),
>and 'såg' is the word that can make a buzzing noise. Weird...
Yes, interesting that (if I'm understanding you correctly) we both use
the same word for the past tense of "see" and for the cutting tool.
>
>('å' another or our weird characters, is pronounced somewhat like 'o' in
>'tore'.)
Apologies to those in the two newsgroups for getting off-topic!
<pe...@egg.nog> writes:
>On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:43:47 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> Are the words for "see" and "read" of more equal difficulty in Swedish?
>
>You be the judge:
>
>> Are the words for "see" and "read" of more equal difficulty in Swedish?
>
>
>se = see
>
>läsa = read
>
>(The funny little character 'ä' is in Swedish pronounced somewhat like
>'ai' in 'pair', or 'fair'.)
Ah, so "lai-sen" - clearly related to the German "lesen", for read. So
I'd say "read" is even less easy to say than "see", so that doesn't
explain why you use "see" only in the literal sense.
>
>> In English, "see" (and "saw") can be said with minimal mouth movement,
>> whereas "read" (present and past tense) do require slightly more.
>
>Funny, though, that in Swedish we also have a contradicting meaning of
>> In English, "see" (and "saw") can be said with minimal mouth movement,
>> whereas "read" (present and past tense) do require slightly more.
>
>words when it comes to 'see' vs. 'saw'. A 'saw' can make a buzzing noise.
>We have the same in Swedish, actually: 'se' (present) and 'såg' (past),
>and 'såg' is the word that can make a buzzing noise. Weird...
Yes, interesting that (if I'm understanding you correctly) we both use
the same word for the past tense of "see" and for the cutting tool.
>
>('å' another or our weird characters, is pronounced somewhat like 'o' in
>'tore'.)
Apologies to those in the two newsgroups for getting off-topic!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Sometimes at night I dream of minus signs ..." (R. J. C. @ UKC, 1981-10-15.)
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Gene E. Bloch
Mar 21, 2012, 8:11:43 PM3/21/12
to
On 3/21/2012, J. P. Gilliver (John) posted:
> In message <J7ydnRhh_et33_fS...@giganews.com>, Pepi
> <pe...@egg.nog> writes:
>>On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:43:47 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>> Are the words for "see" and "read" of more equal difficulty in Swedish?
>>
>>You be the judge:
>>
>>se = see
>>
>>läsa = read
>>
>>(The funny little character 'ä' is in Swedish pronounced somewhat like
>>'ai' in 'pair', or 'fair'.)
> Ah, so "lai-sen" - clearly related to the German "lesen", for read. So I'd
> say "read" is even less easy to say than "see", so that doesn't explain why
> you use "see" only in the literal sense.
>>
>>> In English, "see" (and "saw") can be said with minimal mouth movement,
>>> whereas "read" (present and past tense) do require slightly more.
>>
>>Funny, though, that in Swedish we also have a contradicting meaning of
>>words when it comes to 'see' vs. 'saw'. A 'saw' can make a buzzing noise.
>>We have the same in Swedish, actually: 'se' (present) and 'såg' (past),
>>and 'såg' is the word that can make a buzzing noise. Weird...
> Yes, interesting that (if I'm understanding you correctly) we both use the
> same word for the past tense of "see" and for the cutting tool.
>>
>>('å' another or our weird characters, is pronounced somewhat like 'o' in
>>'tore'.)
> Apologies to those in the two newsgroups for getting off-topic!
For me it's fun, so I think no apology is needed.
> <pe...@egg.nog> writes:
>>On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:43:47 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>> Are the words for "see" and "read" of more equal difficulty in Swedish?
>>
>>You be the judge:
>>
>>se = see
>>
>>läsa = read
>>
>>(The funny little character 'ä' is in Swedish pronounced somewhat like
>>'ai' in 'pair', or 'fair'.)
> Ah, so "lai-sen" - clearly related to the German "lesen", for read. So I'd
> say "read" is even less easy to say than "see", so that doesn't explain why
> you use "see" only in the literal sense.
>>
>>> In English, "see" (and "saw") can be said with minimal mouth movement,
>>> whereas "read" (present and past tense) do require slightly more.
>>
>>Funny, though, that in Swedish we also have a contradicting meaning of
>>words when it comes to 'see' vs. 'saw'. A 'saw' can make a buzzing noise.
>>We have the same in Swedish, actually: 'se' (present) and 'såg' (past),
>>and 'såg' is the word that can make a buzzing noise. Weird...
> Yes, interesting that (if I'm understanding you correctly) we both use the
> same word for the past tense of "see" and for the cutting tool.
>>
>>('å' another or our weird characters, is pronounced somewhat like 'o' in
>>'tore'.)
> Apologies to those in the two newsgroups for getting off-topic!
tlvp
Mar 22, 2012, 1:54:26 AM3/22/12
to
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:51:58 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> ... That's a clue. Next time I'm near one, I'll see[1] ....
>
> ... [1] Find out :-)
I hear ya :-) .
> ... That's a clue. Next time I'm near one, I'll see[1] ....
>
> ... [1] Find out :-)
I hear ya :-) .
tlvp
Mar 22, 2012, 2:04:19 AM3/22/12
to
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:06:50 -0500, Pepi wrote:
> ... in Swedish we also have a contradicting meaning of
Anyway, in a similar vein, there's a classic US elementary school joke:
: "I see," said the blind carpenter, as he picked up his hammer and saw.
> ... in Swedish we also have a contradicting meaning of
> words when it comes to 'see' vs. 'saw'. A 'saw' can make a buzzing noise.
> We have the same in Swedish, actually: 'se' (present) and 'såg' (past),
> and 'såg' is the word that can make a buzzing noise. Weird...
>
> We have the same in Swedish, actually: 'se' (present) and 'såg' (past),
> and 'såg' is the word that can make a buzzing noise. Weird...
>
> ('å' another or our weird characters, is pronounced somewhat like 'o' in
> 'tore'.)
... or the Aa, al, or aw in 'Aalborg' (Danish), 'walk', or 'hawk'?
> 'tore'.)
Anyway, in a similar vein, there's a classic US elementary school joke:
: "I see," said the blind carpenter, as he picked up his hammer and saw.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
burt1...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2012, 5:14:01 AM3/24/12
to
Unless you edit well top posting is the best route to take for the blind
screen-reader user.
The majority, from everything I've read will gladly take top posting or
as you say well edited quotes can be mixed in with the =new post, but no
more than two or three line excerpt on top if you are going to bottom
post, please.
For sure if you are going to just leave an entire thread intact, top
posting is the only way to go, and it can be especially time wasting to
have on such a date so and so said
and five more layers of the same on top of a one line reply. Cut out
extra header junk for sure, and short replies can also be easily lost in
footers/siglines.
There are a few blind ppl who mostly post to and read groups that don't
include many screen-reader users who are so used to bottom posting that
they don't mind it at all, but even most of them will be at least as
happy with top posting.
Someone here had a bunch of header junk that almost no one cares about
inline with their post in another thread I just looked at. That kind of
thing is a time waster for sure.
screen-reader user.
The majority, from everything I've read will gladly take top posting or
as you say well edited quotes can be mixed in with the =new post, but no
more than two or three line excerpt on top if you are going to bottom
post, please.
For sure if you are going to just leave an entire thread intact, top
posting is the only way to go, and it can be especially time wasting to
have on such a date so and so said
and five more layers of the same on top of a one line reply. Cut out
extra header junk for sure, and short replies can also be easily lost in
footers/siglines.
There are a few blind ppl who mostly post to and read groups that don't
include many screen-reader users who are so used to bottom posting that
they don't mind it at all, but even most of them will be at least as
happy with top posting.
Someone here had a bunch of header junk that almost no one cares about
inline with their post in another thread I just looked at. That kind of
thing is a time waster for sure.
burt1...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2012, 5:24:55 AM3/24/12
to
I'll have to take a look with the jaws I almost never use, and make
sure, that there's not a way, but with a standardized system such as
html header levels pitch, or even voice can be changed to reflect each
level, but once thee are more than about three I don't think most folk
could keep track of who was saying what anyway.
I'm too tired to think much on this yet again tonight, but I just want
to say it is always amazing that this is the topic that will get more
commentary than any five "fresh" topics put together. Really, it's
crazy, and I'm no better having commented on posting styles on a
mailing list just a couple of months ago.
I do have an idea, but I want to see if anyone else has mentioned it in
this conversation before I post, and I just don't have enough awake
brain cells to make it come out right till after some sleep anyway.
Have a good day, night or whatever everyone.
Regards
--
B.H.
sure, that there's not a way, but with a standardized system such as
html header levels pitch, or even voice can be changed to reflect each
level, but once thee are more than about three I don't think most folk
could keep track of who was saying what anyway.
I'm too tired to think much on this yet again tonight, but I just want
to say it is always amazing that this is the topic that will get more
commentary than any five "fresh" topics put together. Really, it's
crazy, and I'm no better having commented on posting styles on a
mailing list just a couple of months ago.
I do have an idea, but I want to see if anyone else has mentioned it in
this conversation before I post, and I just don't have enough awake
brain cells to make it come out right till after some sleep anyway.
Have a good day, night or whatever everyone.
Regards
--
B.H.
Message has been deleted
Vaughan
Mar 28, 2012, 6:58:53 PM3/28/12
to
In article <eli$12031...@qz.little-neck.ny.us>,
*@eli.users.panix.com says...
>
> In news.software.readers,
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Why don't you just find one or more blind people on usenet and put
> the question to them? alt.comp.blind-users has active traffic on
> my server.
>
> So now that I've added that crosspost, I'll ask the question. For
> a blind reader of usenet, is it preferable for follow-ups to be
> top posted or bottom posted (or it makes no difference) and why?
>
> Elijah
> ------
> who only knows that blind users don't like ASCII art
Personally: My prefrence is for follow-ups to be bottom posted.
Blind people, (*including myself) make the mistake of believing that
only blind people read our newsgroups and post to same. In the old
days of usenet, this type of topic used to generate flame, which just
became pointless in the end. And as I don't keep watch on
conversations on a regular basis, the original contributions at the
top make it eaiser to understand the chronology of the points raised.
We do have the ability to scroll through postings and as this is a
topic where you can't please everyone all of the time, it seems better
to me if some faith is placed on the ability of the user with his/her
software to filter out the extraneous stuff.
Vaughan.
*@eli.users.panix.com says...
>
> In news.software.readers,
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Why don't you just find one or more blind people on usenet and put
> the question to them? alt.comp.blind-users has active traffic on
> my server.
>
> So now that I've added that crosspost, I'll ask the question. For
> a blind reader of usenet, is it preferable for follow-ups to be
> top posted or bottom posted (or it makes no difference) and why?
>
> Elijah
> ------
> who only knows that blind users don't like ASCII art
Personally: My prefrence is for follow-ups to be bottom posted.
Blind people, (*including myself) make the mistake of believing that
only blind people read our newsgroups and post to same. In the old
days of usenet, this type of topic used to generate flame, which just
became pointless in the end. And as I don't keep watch on
conversations on a regular basis, the original contributions at the
top make it eaiser to understand the chronology of the points raised.
We do have the ability to scroll through postings and as this is a
topic where you can't please everyone all of the time, it seems better
to me if some faith is placed on the ability of the user with his/her
software to filter out the extraneous stuff.
Vaughan.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 28, 2012, 7:11:38 PM3/28/12
to
In message <MPG.29de5edb3...@news.usenetserver.com>, Vaughan
<vau...@overtherainbow.com> writes:
[]
It does help if the person posting the followup snips the quoted
material, though, so that only the bits being replied to are quoted,
rather than the whole post. I hope the above's an example.
--
J. P. Gilliver
<vau...@overtherainbow.com> writes:
[]
>Personally: My prefrence is for follow-ups to be bottom posted.
[]
>We do have the ability to scroll through postings and as this is a
>topic where you can't please everyone all of the time, it seems better
>to me if some faith is placed on the ability of the user with his/her
>software to filter out the extraneous stuff.
[]
>topic where you can't please everyone all of the time, it seems better
>to me if some faith is placed on the ability of the user with his/her
>software to filter out the extraneous stuff.
It does help if the person posting the followup snips the quoted
material, though, so that only the bits being replied to are quoted,
rather than the whole post. I hope the above's an example.
--
J. P. Gilliver
Message has been deleted
tlvp
Apr 4, 2012, 11:33:32 PM4/4/12
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 00:00:24 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
> The previous article is below
>> the sig delimiter and will be ignored by many users.
You think that's bad? An MVP of my acquaintance insists on quoting first,
suitably trimmed, and then having set the stage for his reply, inserts a
sig delimiter ([hyphen] [hyphen] [space] [newline]), and then his reply.
Makes it an annoying chore to reply meaningfully to his posts, as his
entire contribution, coming after the sig delimiter, disappears from all
follow-ups except perhaps those composed in one of the Outlook family.
I think he does it out of spite, full knowing it displeases (like Alice's
well known children's sneezes :-) ).
> The previous article is below
>> the sig delimiter and will be ignored by many users.
You think that's bad? An MVP of my acquaintance insists on quoting first,
suitably trimmed, and then having set the stage for his reply, inserts a
sig delimiter ([hyphen] [hyphen] [space] [newline]), and then his reply.
Makes it an annoying chore to reply meaningfully to his posts, as his
entire contribution, coming after the sig delimiter, disappears from all
follow-ups except perhaps those composed in one of the Outlook family.
I think he does it out of spite, full knowing it displeases (like Alice's
well known children's sneezes :-) ).
Adam H. Kerman
Apr 5, 2012, 12:15:49 AM4/5/12
to
tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 00:00:24 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>>Mike Yetto <mye...@nycap.invalid> wrote:
>> The previous article is below
>>> the sig delimiter and will be ignored by many users.
Nice job on the quoting levels there, dude. You're piggybacking. You cut
>On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 00:00:24 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>>Mike Yetto <mye...@nycap.invalid> wrote:
>> The previous article is below
>>> the sig delimiter and will be ignored by many users.
Mike's attribution line, then you mixed quoting levels between Mike and
Sn!pe.
>You think that's bad? An MVP of my acquaintance insists on quoting first,
>suitably trimmed, and then having set the stage for his reply, inserts a
>sig delimiter ([hyphen] [hyphen] [space] [newline]), and then his reply.
>Makes it an annoying chore to reply meaningfully to his posts, as his
>entire contribution, coming after the sig delimiter, disappears from all
>follow-ups except perhaps those composed in one of the Outlook family.
>I think he does it out of spite, full knowing it displeases (like Alice's
>well known children's sneezes :-) ).
last word by making it annoying to quote in followup. Sounds unfriendly
to me.
John Doe
Apr 5, 2012, 12:19:22 AM4/5/12
to
Might be helpful to remove the blind users group, if you don't mind.
tlvp
Apr 5, 2012, 8:54:23 PM4/5/12
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 04:15:49 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> ... Why should that bother anyone? He's trying to force you to give him the
> ... Why should that bother anyone? He's trying to force you to give him the
> last word by making it annoying to quote in followup. Sounds unfriendly
> to me.
Answered your own question, didn't you? Thanks for saving me the work :-) .
> to me.
0 new messages