Talk:JAWS (screen reader)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article history

The history of this article (before the merge) can be found here. I don't think there's much point in merging the page histories, even though it's probably possible. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged the page histories. —Angr 14:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That reminds me, I need to update it ... Graham87 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Issue

There is a sentence "It costs individuals who are blind and arm and a leg". Obviously not a professional or helpful comment; should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.133.108 (talk • contribs) on 14:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be neither professional nor helpful, but it is nevertheless true, and so should be provided as factual information. For example, for French users, the Windows XP Home version costs €1500, whereas the Windows XP Pro version, the only one to support more than one language, costs €2600. For that, one could buy quite a number of Windows boxes, or even a MacBook Pro. Anarchie76 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree but that statement violates the neutral point of view policy because it's someone's opinion. If a reliable source can be found about the complaints (not a forum or a blog) then they could be added. I can't think of any off-hand but a lot of blind people I know would agree with you. Graham87 05:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment about the "arm and the leg" was posted on this talk page in October of 2006 ( I just added an unsigned tag) and the comment appears to have been permanently removed from the article since shortly after this talk posting. Jeepday (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do price lists count as reliable sources?

Otherwise try Minutes of the August 17, 2006 Meeting of US Government Web Content Managers or David Heiser of the (US) IRS’s Tax Forms and Publications Divison speaking at a Federal CIO Council XML Working Group meeting, or the Sydney Morning Herald report on poor compliance with accessibility standards.

Being completely objective, JAWS is expensive by any standards, and blind people who have no form of public assistance or subsidy find it hard to pay for. The statement could be more neutrally phrased "JAWS is an expensive product, and must be upgraded at high cost regularly" but that would lose the punch and wordplay of the original. Anarchie76 08:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Price lists count as reliable sources for the price of a product, but not for anything else. In the case of JAWS, its price hasn't changed for a few years now but it could be lowered in the future. As for the sources you gave, they either give the price of JAWS or say it is expensive without elaborating further.

The other issue I have with the statement - why pick on JAWS? I don't personally like some of Freedom Scientific's pricing policies, but the reality of the market is that screen readers are a specialised product and have relatively few customers compared to, say, best-selling books. Because it costs so much to produce a screen reader and the potential customer base is low, the prices have to be high for a company to break even. It's the same reason why Perkins Braillers, refreshable braille displays and braille embossers are so expensive compared to their counterparts for the sighted - typewriters, monitors and printers respectively. Screen readers, with the exception of free software like Emacspeak, are therefore necessarily expensive.

I don't have sources for much of what I said above - it's just based on my experience with blindess technology and talking with people who use and know a lot about it. I don't usually edit blindness topics - I have strong views on them and prefer to keep my own POV at the door. Graham87 10:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest release date

The lastest release is given as "8.0.1163 / 28 February 2006" - this should be 2007. Steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.128.20.235 (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, I've fixed it. Graham87 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)