Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #162257 > unrolled thread

wget log from Jigdo

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <sm@noisynotes.com> - 2015-12-30 16:40 +0100
    Re: wget log from Jigdo Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-30 17:00 +0100
      Re: wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <sm@noisynotes.com> - 2015-12-30 19:30 +0100
        Re: wget log from Jigdo Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:40 +0100
      Re: wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <sm@noisynotes.com> - 2015-12-30 20:40 +0100
        Re: wget log from Jigdo Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 21:00 +0100
          Re: wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <sm@noisynotes.com> - 2015-12-30 22:20 +0100
            Re: wget log from Jigdo Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2015-12-31 03:00 +0100
              Re: wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <sm@noisynotes.com> - 2015-12-31 16:50 +0100
        Re: wget log from Jigdo Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2015-12-30 22:00 +0100
          Re: wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <sm@noisynotes.com> - 2015-12-30 22:20 +0100
          Re: wget log from Jigdo Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2015-12-30 23:10 +0100
            Re: wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <sm@noisynotes.com> - 2015-12-31 16:50 +0100
              Re: wget log from Jigdo Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 17:00 +0100
                Re: wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <sm@noisynotes.com> - 2015-12-31 17:20 +0100
                  Re: wget log from Jigdo Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2016-01-02 10:30 +0100
        Re: wget log from Jigdo Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-01 16:00 +0100
          Re: wget log from Jigdo Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-01-01 16:50 +0100
            Re: wget log from Jigdo Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-02 18:30 +0100
              Re: wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <sm@noisynotes.com> - 2016-01-02 21:20 +0100
              Re: wget log from Jigdo Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 00:10 +0100
                Re: wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <sm@noisynotes.com> - 2016-01-03 01:30 +0100
                Re: wget log from Jigdo Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-01-03 16:40 +0100
                  Re: wget log from Jigdo Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-04 12:10 +0100
                    Re: wget log from Jigdo Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2016-01-04 12:40 +0100
                    Re: wget log from Jigdo Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-01-04 13:00 +0100
                      Re: wget log from Jigdo Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 15:20 +0100
                        Re: wget log from Jigdo Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-01-04 19:50 +0100
                      Re: wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <number6@noisynotes.com> - 2016-01-07 07:00 +0100
                        Re: wget log from Jigdo Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 12:10 +0100
                          Re: wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <sm@noisynotes.com> - 2016-01-07 13:40 +0100
                            Re: wget log from Jigdo Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 14:00 +0100
                              Re: wget log from Jigdo Steve Matzura <number6@noisynotes.com> - 2016-01-09 17:30 +0100
          Re: wget log from Jigdo Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 16:50 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#162510

On Saturday 02 January 2016 17:22:11 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:45:40PM +0000, Brian wrote:
> > On Sat 02 Jan 2016 at 03:54:38 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > (BTW, top-posting makes it difficult to reply, and I couldn't be
> > > bothered copying and pasting to correct it.)
> >
> > You would do well to read *all* of Steve Matzura's posts before
> > bemoaning your lot. You'll come across "speech synthesis" and
> > "screen reader".
>
> In that case, mails in html must be almost impossible to comprehend. :)
> I'm guessing there is some sort of configuration available, so something
> like t-prot (apt-cache show t-prot) could be used. I'm only guessing
> here, I've never had any experience with a screen reader.

My blind friend with his screen reader seems to have much less trouble with 
messy HTML than I (partially sighted) do.  His screen reader just reads it to 
him.  I stare at the mess of "pretty" colours and fancy writing, with 
blotches and swirls everywhere and don't know where to begin.  

But he found bottom posting and interleaving terrible.  He does appear to have 
come to terms with it now and even does it himself.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162514

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 23:06:29 +0000, Lisi wrote:

>My blind friend with his screen reader seems to have much less trouble with 
>messy HTML than I (partially sighted) do.  His screen reader just reads it to 
>him.  I stare at the mess of "pretty" colours and fancy writing, with 
>blotches and swirls everywhere and don't know where to begin.  


Of which we hear virtually nothing. Many of those blotches and swirls
we here as the word "graphic", and if the coder of said page was nice
enough, we'll here the alt-tag assigned to said graphic. Otherwise, we
get it very plain, which, to tell all you non-visually-impaired
majority out there ( :-) ), we like just fine! <ear-to-ear grin>. In
fact, and this is just a wee bit off-topic, something else you all
would love to know: we who receive magazines in special formats
(narrated, transcribed into braille) do *NOT* receive any of the
advertising the rest of you all have to plow through to find the
articles. It wasn't until the explosion of the Web as an advertisement
platform that people who relied on specially prepared reading
materials came to know just how much advertising is all around them,
and always has been, in standard print media. But on the flip side,
advertisers don't realize we're not gettin' their message, partially
because of undescribed graphics, but mostly because we just use our
down-arrow keys a lot and pass the ads right by!

>But he found bottom posting and interleaving terrible.  He does appear to have 
>come to terms with it now and even does it himself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162529

On 1/2/2016 5:06 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> [snip]
>
> My blind friend with his screen reader seems to have much less trouble with
> messy HTML than I (partially sighted) do.  His screen reader just reads it to
> him.  I stare at the mess of "pretty" colours and fancy writing, with
> blotches and swirls everywhere and don't know where to begin.

I browse with SeaMonkey 2.26.1 under WinXP. For my needs and 
usage pattern I
have a partial solution to similar problems:
1. I routinely surf with JavaScript disabled. I have a separate 
profile for
    visiting the very few sites for which JavaScript provides 
content I know
    I want. This does have the side affect that some sights fail 
silently by
    showing me a blank screen. On the whole those sites have 
other problems.
    Competent sites are coded to display a message such as 
"JavaScript must be
    enabled to enjoy this site." They are much more likely to get 
my business.
    Also,their design is generally more competently done.
2. I set my profile to ignore background images and sites choice 
of colors. This
    was prompted by sites with poor contrast of foreground text 
with the background.
    I also force underlining of all links and my choice of colors 
for visited and
    unvisited links. All other text is black on white. The only 
downside has been
    things like "search boxes" can be harder to spot.
3. SeaMonkey allows specifying minimum font size in pixels. Some 
sloppy sites
    are careless about absolute screen position of graphics and 
how text flows
    around objects.

A side question to Steve, "Is this post screen reader friendly?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162570

On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 09:32:36AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> 
> A side question to Steve, "Is this post screen reader friendly?"

That reminds me of the lecturers who say 'Hands up if you can't hear me
at the back.'

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162571

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 00:07:21 +1300
Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:

> > A side question to Steve, "Is this post screen reader friendly?"  

> That reminds me of the lecturers who say 'Hands up if you can't hear me
> at the back.'

"Smith ! I did not see you at the camouflage class !"
"Sir ! Thank you, Sir !"
 
Cheers,
 
Ron.
-- 
         An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less
             until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
                                    
                   -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162573

On 1/4/2016 5:07 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 09:32:36AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>
>> A side question to Steve, "Is this post screen reader friendly?"
>
> That reminds me of the lecturers who say 'Hands up if you can't hear me
> at the back.'
>

I thought it was a logical question ;}

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162579

On Monday 04 January 2016 11:53:15 Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 1/4/2016 5:07 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 09:32:36AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >> A side question to Steve, "Is this post screen reader friendly?"
> >
> > That reminds me of the lecturers who say 'Hands up if you can't hear me
> > at the back.'
>
> I thought it was a logical question ;}

I agree.  It can be accessible with a screen reader - just.  Or it can be 
easily accessible.  You were asking whether it was the second.  A valid 
question IMHO.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162598

On 1/4/2016 8:10 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 04 January 2016 11:53:15 Richard Owlett wrote:
>> On 1/4/2016 5:07 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 09:32:36AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>>> A side question to Steve, "Is this post screen reader friendly?"
>>>
>>> That reminds me of the lecturers who say 'Hands up if you can't hear me
>>> at the back.'
>>
>> I thought it was a logical question ;}
>
> I agree.  It can be accessible with a screen reader - just.  Or it can be
> easily accessible.  You were asking whether it was the second.  A valid
> question IMHO.
>
> Lisi

I think Chris undestood that. That's why I replied with a smiley.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162743

Richard:

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 05:53:15 -0600, you wrote:

>On 1/4/2016 5:07 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 09:32:36AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>>
>>> A side question to Steve, "Is this post screen reader friendly?"
>>
>> That reminds me of the lecturers who say 'Hands up if you can't hear me
>> at the back.'
>>
>
>I thought it was a logical question ;}

It was. Just because something isn't screenreader-friendly doesn't
mean it's unreadable. It's not an bistable situation; more like
picking a clam out of a shell, where sometimes there's more shell than
clam, and sometimes you get no shell at all, just the meat, meaning,
in this case, just plain text with no frills and markup code. But
that's largely the purvue of the messaging client, not the
screenreader. Screenreaders speak what text is presented to them, and
in some cases try to distinguish what's important, or most important,
to be spoken based on text attributes, mostly color attributes, or in
the case of a dialog box, where the cursor is located--i.e., what
control in said dialog on which the cursor is placed. Take Outlook,
for instance. It knows what to do with HTML, where the email program
I'm using does not, so if I get email that's full of HTML, I just
throw it into a browser and I'm good for reading it over there.
Luckily, very little email comes full of HTML these days unless it's
store spam, and those I just discard automatically anyway, but even
though my chosen email client doesn't handle HTML well, I have
alternatives. That's one thing visually impaired computer users learn
early in the game--there's almost always an alternative that will suit
one's requirements. Read: "where there's a will, there's a way."
That's the accessibility biz for ya, which is why I chose Debian,
because it's low-overhead, no GUI required, unless I want or need one,
which I don't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162759

On Thursday 07 January 2016 05:33:16 Steve Matzura wrote:
> Richard:
>
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 05:53:15 -0600, you wrote:
> >On 1/4/2016 5:07 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 09:32:36AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >>> A side question to Steve, "Is this post screen reader friendly?"
> >>
> >> That reminds me of the lecturers who say 'Hands up if you can't hear me
> >> at the back.'
> >
> >I thought it was a logical question ;}
>
[snip long unbroken paragraph]

Steve -

I don't know how difficult it would be for you, but would it be possible for 
you to split your text up a bit?  

If a fully sighted person faced me with such a difficult block of text, I 
would class it with HTML and not bother to read it.  ("If (s)he can't be 
bothered to make his/her text legible I can't be bothered to read it.")

I don't like to do that to you, but is there any possibility you could split 
your text up?  Randomly would do me fine, though other people might complain 
at that!! ;-)

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162761

Lisi,

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:04:33 +0000, you wrote:

>I don't know how difficult it would be for you, but would it be possible for 
>you to split your text up a bit?  

Split it up? I don't know what you mean.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162764

On Thursday 07 January 2016 12:36:25 Steve Matzura wrote:
> Lisi,
>
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:04:33 +0000, you wrote:
> >I don't know how difficult it would be for you, but would it be possible
> > for you to split your text up a bit?
>
> Split it up? I don't know what you mean.

Put some paragraphs in.  Let in some air.  Your text is just one big block 
with no gaps, which is very difficult for me to read.  I'll ask my blind 
friend how he how does it - and how to explain so that you will understand.  
Since you can't see anyway, you obviously don't know what an unbroken block 
of text looks like.

I'll ask Mike and get back to you.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162808

I have a sneaky suspicion it's a writing-style thing. I'll make 'em
shorter next time.  

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:51:53 +0000, you wrote:

>On Thursday 07 January 2016 12:36:25 Steve Matzura wrote:
>> Lisi,
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:04:33 +0000, you wrote:
>> >I don't know how difficult it would be for you, but would it be possible
>> > for you to split your text up a bit?
>>
>> Split it up? I don't know what you mean.
>
>Put some paragraphs in.  Let in some air.  Your text is just one big block 
>with no gaps, which is very difficult for me to read.  I'll ask my blind 
>friend how he how does it - and how to explain so that you will understand.  
>Since you can't see anyway, you obviously don't know what an unbroken block 
>of text looks like.
>
>I'll ask Mike and get back to you.
>
>Lisi
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162431

On Friday 01 January 2016 14:54:38 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 02:34:55PM -0500, Steve Matzura wrote:

>
> (BTW, top-posting makes it difficult to reply, and I couldn't be bothered
> copying and pasting to correct it.)

And harder still to follow.  But I gather from elsewhere that bottom posting 
is tricky if you use a screen reader to reply to your email.  Tricky to read 
and even trickier to do, so perhaps in this case we should be a little more 
tolerant.

I frequently interleave, and I am told that that is a nightmare with a screen 
reader.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web