Coqui TTS has blew my mind!
Linux for blind general discussion
blinux-list at redhat.com
Thu Feb 10 19:11:30 UTC 2022
If there was a Text-mode web browser half as useable as Firefox, I'd
ditch the GUI altogether... but if web designers would stop
same functionality could be achieved with basic HTML, the deficiencies
of most text-mode browsers would be less glaring... and while the
navigational hotkeys provided by Orca, NVDA, and JAWS are so darn
useful I have to wonder how I got by without them back when I had a
working eye, as far as I know, no text-mode web browser has such a
feature and the way text-mode screen readers work, it's not a feature
that can be added to text-mode screen readers.
That said, as this is the first time I've heard of fallback
links(though I have come across streaming sites that would present an
inaccessible player if libavcodec58 is installed and a download link
if it isn't, so I've probably encountered them without knowing what
they are called, and in a different context than the one stated by the
person who mentioned them) I have to ask: Is their a way to force
Firefox to always display fall back links? And why would they be
hidden by default in the first place? To my mind, the most accessible
thing would be for streaming and downloading to be equally easy where
the user is capable of doing either.
On 2/10/22, Linux for blind general discussion <blinux-list at redhat.com> wrote:
> ..which makes stating that these are accessible incorrect.
> These samples are in fact accessible, by the w3c's guidelines, not mine.
> I stated that I have added fallback links to my own website, but this is
> not a requirement for HTML5 accessibility as defined by the w3c's
> accessibility working group, or at least not as far as I know. It's just
> something I did because I wanted to include legacy support for older
>> Linux exists in command line as well as gui. as someone else in a
>> different thread noted recently, they personally would not touch gui
>> again for the rest of their lives if given a choice. Meaning these
>> options are not universally available or accessible in Linux as a whole.
> The fact that text-based browsers do not support HTML5 standards makes
> them inaccessible and perhaps even unusable. There is nothing in the
> world stopping them from becoming usable by today's standards, it would
> seem that they just want to stay back in the 1990's. Music and video
> players exist in text environments, offering nearly all the
> functionality I get on a desktop. It's time for the browser to do the
> same. Still, if my phone and my desktop environment can read it without
> any issues, two out of three ain't all that bad. That said, I was not
> attempting to start a flame war, as I mentioned the fallback possibility
> as something that I do, but that the browsers I use hide those fallback
> links, so I can't say whether or not this other website that I did not
> write employs such links, which would make the samples available through
> other browsers, but again is not at all a requirement to meet 2022's
> accessibility guidelines as defined by people other than myself, which
> incidentally includes people who as you say use text environments as
> much as possible. But even those people must use what browsers are
> designed to at least try to adhere to those guidelines, and like it or
> not, even w3m does not comply with current HTML standards, and it's
> about the best text browser available.
> might as well say, please only be disabled as I personally define it,
> writing accessible by your own dictionary and seemingly to project it on
> to other people.
> Not at all my intention. I didn't define the accessibility guidelines, I
> only adhere to them to the best of my own abilities, and even took my
> website's accessibility a major step further than I needed to in order
> to accomodate the most people. How dare you put words into my mouth that
> I never said, especially since I clearly said the opposite. And I don't
> think that was the w3c's intention either.
> Why not say from the outset, that the items are only available for some
> Linux users?
> Because that would be an outright lie. Everyone who runs a Linux
> operating system has the choice to use Brave, Chromium, Google Chrome,
> Firefox and a host of other standards-compliant browsers. Just because
> you yourself made the choice not to use them does not mean that they are
> not available should you choose one of them. There are even ways around
> the whole desktop environment and screen display thing, using xvfb I
> think it's called with dummy display output and a very small window
> manager that just runs your screen reader and browser and otherwise
> stays completely out of the way. Again, it's about personal choice, but
> more about needing the ability to choose a text-mode browser that can
> to be able to handle basic things like banking and shopping without
> choking and either crashing or sending me to a blank screen or back to
> the login page as if my credentials were incorrect. The fact is that
> text browsers can't even handle HTML4 correctly, as they don't know how
> to handle something as simple as headers in most cases. At the very
> least, keyboard header navigation would be a step in the right
> direction. But again, this is not my fault, nor the fault of modern
> website developers. This is a lack of standards compliance among
> text-mode browsers. Nothing more, nothing less.
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list at redhat.com
More information about the Blinux-list