Correction: I meant "top posting" rather than "top quoting."
To elaborate a bit, the incompatibility problems often seem to be
related to determining whether the screen reader correctly detects that
Thunderbird or Firefox is displaying HTML content. If so, screen
readers typically turn on a browse or virtual mode automatically, which
includes many single-letter hotkeys for navigating among HTML elements.
It is generally much less efficient to read HTML content without that
Another common area of problems is the TB composition Window. I think
TB is supposed to use iAccessible2 for full editing support via a screen
reader, but for some reason, screen readers are not harmonizing with
that iA2 interface, thus often making it difficult to edit the text of a
On 11/8/2011 6:46 AM, Jamal Mazrui wrote:
> Sorry for not responding sooner -- I did not find the reply text before.
> I know that in-line quoting is favored by sighted technical people, but
> unfortunately, top quoting tends to be considerably more accessible to
> screen reader users.
> I have noticed support for Thundirbird and Firefox broken in JAWS, NVDA,
> and Window-Eyes due to major version changes over the past year. It is
> so bad that users often encourage newcomers to stay with TB 3.1 for now.
> As a specific, JAWS 12 stopped being able to read a message
> automatically when it was opened in TB 5 and above (this has since been
> fixed in JAWS 13). As a developer of JAWS scripts for TB, I found that
> less information was available via MSAA in TB 5 and above than before.
> Unfortunately, these observations and experiences make me seriously
> question Mozilla's testing process with screen readers.
> On 11/6/2011 8:40 AM, Wayne Mery (vn) wrote:
>> jamal ??
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: Rapid development leads to many incompatible AddOns
>> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Alexander Surkov <[hidden email]>
>> Organization: http://groups.google.com >> Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.accessibility
>> <[hidden email]>
>> <[hidden email]>
>> On Oct 8, 10:20 pm, Jamal Mazrui <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I agree that the major version changes have been coming too quickly with
>>> Firefox and Thunderbird. Among other things, the changes have been
>>> breaking accessibility with screen readers.
>>> On 10/8/2011 7:59 AM, McGyver008 wrote:
>>> > Hi to all,
>>> > directly spoken: One of the most interesting features of FF - the
>>> > AddOn's - get more and more often problems because of the method(s) of
>>> > FF's development.
>>> > Although development in general is necessary, of course and very
>>> > important.. but I don't understand, why some basic functionality (for
>>> > changes that quickly.
>>> > Many AddOn's need significantly more time for updates and in the
>>> > moment even some well-known AddOn's like DownThemAll do only support
>>> > FF 6.X, although there are 4 (!) complete new 'levels' of FF versions
>>> > in nightly available (7.x, 8.x, 9.x, 10.x). Even the releases begin to
>>> > outspace some AddOn's.
>>> > Ok, my question: Why is it necessary to change so many aspects in a
>>> > way, that make make it essential to rewrite so many AddOn's with every
>>> > new 'major version step' (e.g. 6.x to 7.x)? I don't understand, why it
>>> > is so important to make several steps during one year (it is really
>>> > very strange - sorry - to see FF versions ranging between 3.x and 10.x
>>> > in use... even though some of them are only nightly's and some others
>>> > are known to be outdated... it looks like an inflation in versions).
>>> > Well done software need to be updated as well, but not permanently
>>> > from ground up - sorry. It looks like there is a preference in
>>> > development... and speed in development seems to beat quality
>>> > completely. Can this really be a good idea...?
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > dev-accessibility mailing list
>>> > [hidden email] >>> >https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-accessibility >>
>> Hi, Jamal. What kind of problems of screen readers support can you see
>> because of rapid release cycle?