Gene, you have made some valid points in this message. One thing that I would like to add is this. People who are blind/visually impaired should be given a choice in how they choose to access their material and no one should dictate or put someone down if they decide to choose one medium over another. If someone prefers braille, that's fine but if they prefer to use speech, they have that right.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 2020-03-05 8:38 p.m., Gene wrote:
What you have written can't properly be discussed for reasons I'll explain in these comments.
First, I have no idea what you mean because you don't do what is essential to do as one of the starting points of any philosophical or so many other discussions, you don't define your terms. If you don't define your terms, how do we know that we are talking about the same things?
I have no idea what you mean by audio. Do you mean someone reading as an audio book? Do you mean a computer using an audio synthesizer? the two are completely different. I can look up information as fast as you can if you are using a computer with Braille Output and I am using a computer with speech output. If that is what you are talking about, your statement is factually incorrect. it isn't even a matter of opinion. If you are talking about someone using a paper Braille dictionary or encyclopedia and tnother person using a print dictionary or encyclopedia, then the print user will be able to look up information faster. Again, your statement is factually incorrrect. Try to look up a word using a 72 volume Brailld dictionary as quickly as a sighted perso using the same dictionary in one print volume. Since I have no idea what you are comparing to what, I can only make statements of this sort because you didn't define your terms.
And like it or not, some blind people find Braille faster and more easy to retain information from and others find speech faster and more easy to retain information from. I find speech much faster and easier to retain information from. But I don't say ridiculous things like there should be speech and no Braille. You may find Braille faster and easier. But that doesn't give you any logical basis for saying that there should be all Braille and no speech.
I've read my share of Braille. I can listen to speech at about 350 words per minute comfortably and with good retension. I can read Braille at about 180 words per minute, with good retension. I find it more tiring to read Braille.
I believe that blind children should learn Braille just as sighted children should learn print. But making statements such as that there should be all Braille and no speech are preposterous.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2020 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] warning if you doing business
What do you have against braille? The sighted have print and we
should have braille. Braille will always be the most efficient way to
look somthing up just try to find what you want on an audio cd. We
should have all braille and no audio.
On 3/5/2020 7:35 PM, Dave wrote:
Gosh, a couple of you had me Laughing Out Loud!
Complaining about having to pay Postage, and that Braille instructions
don[t come in the package?
Sheesh! Be Dam Thankful you get an Audio file! but, Braille?
Now that was Funny! I Needed a Good Laugh today.