Mail Archives: opendos/1998/08/31/17:19:59
Dear Jim --
You do *not* speak for all blind people when you
ask for such special consideration in forming email replies. I for one would
urge others to use whatever dialogue mode is appropriate when forming a
reply to another message. Most replies are point-by-point commentaries on an
original post, in which the original point is followed *in context* by the
reply. Grouping all such replies at the start of the message is (1)
unnatural, (2) inappropriate, and (3) breaks the chain of the dialogue. I
have observed the type of complaint you are making numerous times and on
several lists, but they have always come from you -- I have never seen them
from anyone else. You are of course entitled to ask for whatever special
consideration you think you need, but please do not do so on behalf of other
people, such as myself, and perhaps others as well. My own preference is to
encourage the formation of message replies in whatever way preserves the
sense of the exchange, and that usually does not mean reversing the order of
the exchange and the segregation of original vs. responding comments as you
suggest. Maybe what you need is a pre-processor to reorganize the contents
of your incoming email so that quoted material is automatically shuttled to
the bottom of your message. Perhaps a selectable feature in your browser
would do the trick. But I would not use such a feature, nor do I think most
blind readers of email would use it.
Since your preference is for the present style of response, I end my
response and reproduce the instigating context below. You may skip it if you
wish -- there is nothing new of mine within it.
On 1998-08-31 Matthias DOT Paul AT post DOT rwth-aachen DOT de said:
>I am giving an example of the type of post that makes it difficult
>for blind readers who use speech to get to the new information,
>without listening to quotes which they have heard often several
>times before. This is * not * an attack on anyone, but a
>constructive suggestion for all.
>-----------------------------
>My usual reply.
>Those of us who read e-mail with speech want to get to the new
>information, with as little time as possible waisted listening to
>quotes which we have already heard several times.
>A fall back strategy is to dump the speech buffer, go to the end of
>the post, and search back for the last > and listen from there.
>When some people are so eager to include everything, that they put
>their new comments between the quoted stuff and the quoted tag
>lines and footers, even this last resort is defeated.
>I am not against all quoting,
>but it is often much too long or entirely superfluous.
>This is not a personal attack, but a constructive suggestion toward
>making the list easier reading and more helpful to all.
>Thanks much for your consideration.
>If you quote me, please put your comments first.
>I have already listened to my questions.
>Thanks.
>------------------------------
>example of difficult post to sort with speech.
>>From dj-admin AT delorie DOT com Mon Aug 31 09:06:41 1998
>Received: from delorie.com (delorie.com [199.125.93.1])
>by eos.arc.nasa.gov (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
>id JAA23988 for <jims AT eos DOT arc DOT nasa DOT gov>; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:06:19
>-0700 Received: (from guest AT localhost)
>by delorie.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA08545
>for opendos-list; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 11:46:16 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from mail.rwth-aachen.de (root AT localhost)
>by delorie.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA08529
>for <opendos AT delorie DOT com>; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 11:46:13 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from mail.RWTH-Aachen.DE ( [137.226.144.9])
>by delorie.com (antispam)
>X-PMrqc: 1
>Received: from reze-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de by mail.rwth-aachen.de
>(PMDF V5.1-10 #30440) with SMTP id <01J19FXYU42M000448 AT mail.
>rwth-aachen.de> for opendos AT delorie DOT com; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:47:26
>+0200 Received: from REZE-1/MERCQUEUE by reze-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de
>(Mercury 1.13) ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:46:00 +0100
>Received: from MERCQUEUE by REZE-1 (Mercury 1.13); Mon,
>31 Aug 1998 17:45:50 +0100
>Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:45:43 +0100
>Organization: Rechenzentrum RWTH Aachen
>X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
>Priority: normal
>X-Mailing-List: opendos AT delorie DOT com
>Precedence: bulk
>Status: RO
>On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 Marc D . Williams wrote:
>> Anyone try DRMOUSE yet? It won't work at all and keeps saying
>> No Mouse Detected. Tried all the switches I could but no go.
>DRMOUSE currently has some problems to detect a few mice
>(apparently some Logitech or Genius serial mice), however my
>Logitech 3-button PS/2 mouse is successfully detected by the
>driver and works OK.
>> The page also mentions something about LFN with regards to
>>command.com but as far as I know there still isn't any LFN
>support in this command.com. The LFN support is provided by the
>installable LONGNAME driver, not by the command processor like
>COMMAND.COM. It could also be provided by another driver, like the
>VxD layer under Windows 95.
>However, to work with long filenames the command processor also
>needs to use the new LFN API functions instead of the traditional
>function set. DR-DOS COMMAND.COM does that since DR-OpenDOS 7.02+,
>so does the DR-DOS 7.03 BETA COMMAND.COM, and so does for example
>4DOS 6.00+. To provide long filenames the shell is not bound on
>LONGNAME; for example you can use DR-DOS' COMMAND.COM as a better
>shell replacement in a Windows 95 DOS-box, too.
>Matthias
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Matthias Paul, Ubierstrasse 28, D-50321 Bruehl, Germany
>eMail: <Matthias DOT Paul AT post DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
>Web : http://www.rhrz.uni-bonn.de/~uzs180/mpdokeng.html
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Caldera Digital Research Systems/OpenLinux: http://www.caldera.com/
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
Net-Tamer V 1.12 Beta - Registered
- Raw text -