> On Thu, 7 Mar 1996 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
>
> > tytso:
> >
> > : I'm the most uncomfortable with the changes to the bootsector. We only
> > : have so many configuration bytes available, and using a full byte for
> > : the blind option seems to not be the best use of that resource.
> >
> > : Question: is it really critical that all of the hardware probe messages
> > : always be accessible via the blind-mode console? How about this as a
> > : proposal:
> >
> > : All kernels will have support for turning on/off "blind mode" via the
> > ...
> >
> > I tend to agree with these sentiments, and have one additional remark:
> > the use of the label "blind mode" is misleading. This is about one
> > particular brand of Braille machine.
> > So, we do not want to have a "blind mode" - we want a no-scroll mode.
>
> Two particular brands of Braille reader, apparently... But I both agree and
> disagree with your statement. Yes, all it does is turn scrollback off.
> However, if any future changes are needed for vision-impaired access, they
> can be added to the same place. And calling it "blind mode" makes it obvious
> what it's used for. If it's only called "no-scroll mode", nobody will be able
> to find it or figure out what it's used for...
YES, it is true. I think that much more things could be added to Linux to
help blind people use it. Actually the unique OS that support some access
to blinds is DOS. I think that it is going down and linux can be a good
solution.
> > Andries
>
> --
> Kenneth Albanowski (kjahds@kjahds.com, CIS: 70705,126)
>
>
>
>
>
JVE
--- +---------------------------------+ | Jose Vilmar Estacio de Souza | | EMAIL: jvilmar@embratel.net.br | | RIO de JANEIRO RJ - BRASIL | | +---------------------------------+