(no title)
SLJ7 | 4 years ago
> After all, if it was of equivalent convenience then loads of people would be using it, no?
It's hard to approach this with a sufficient lack of bias because I don't have any sight, but wouldn't you say that for most people, sight is sort of a "lazy sense" in that people will resort to doing things in a visually-intuitive way long before they'll learn an alternative method? That's the whole reason computer interfaces were designed the way they were. It's the most efficient way, but part of that is because our brains are wired for it to be the most efficient way. If you take away that possibility, sure I'll be less functional with one of my senses missing, but between the frustration of being less efficient and the removal of the remote possibility that I could learn to do things using sight, I have a lot of bandwidth for learning and discovering other ways. Of course, I'll never know whether I would be more efficient with sight if I had grown up with it, and there's a possibility I may never know in general. I suspect a power user who has mastered keyboard shortcuts could probably navigate most interfaces more quickly. The bottom line is that the average blind person has more incentive to learn the inner workings of technology, so many people will be able to navigate at a speed approaching that of the average sighted person or possibly faster.
It's possible to run a screen-reader on Linux, but I wouldn't rely on it as a testing mechanism. You'd be better off with Windows or Mac, which both have built-in screen-readers now. I am aware of blind people who use Linux as their primary OS, but the community is much smaller and unfortunately it just isn't as polished, nor does every desktop environment and app offer the same level of accessibility.
No comments yet.