1237a59f5420
tech



Hello Phil - 

--8<--cut 

PM>> For a moment there I thought you were saying that you
PM>> could have enlarged video fonts (like True-Type) under
PM>> DOS. That would be =real= handy for my low-vision group,
PM>> and would allow them to read ebooks (like those available
PM>> via Gutenberg) on something as lowly as a 386 -- the only
PM>> equipment we have plenty of. I thought there was a text
PM>> editor or word processor from the DOS era that did have
PM>> large fonts, but everyone tells me this is not possible,
PM>> and I have not been able to track it or anything like it
PM>> down. (If anyone does know of such a beast, please let me
PM>> know.) 

>>  (Waving hand in the air) I know! I know! 

[g] 

>> It's called W31 and will execute on a '386 with as little as
>> 4 meg of memory. Then use Wordpad and larger fonts. 

PM>  Not sure exactly what you have in mind here. 

I wasn't thinking when I wrote that. You would use WRITE.EXE
for PeepHole because WORDPAD.EXE came later with W9x. WRITE.EXE
would work btw. I checked. You _can_ increase and select fonts. 

PM> In general Windows unfortunately is a major stumbling block
PM> here. While it may work for a very few it won't for the
PM> huge majority. A few problems -- always remembering that
PM> these are low vision people who will be using it (some of
PM> whom are legally blind) and many not even familiar with
PM> computers. 

You specifically mentioned reading Gutenberg e-books. My reply
was based solely on that one requirement. 

I too have limited vision. Nothing I can gain great deal of
sympathy for. I continue to drive etc. but it is diffult to
read a newspaper, labels on food at the supermarket, etc. This
is _with_ corrective lensed bifocals btw. 

PM> 1. I myself can barely make out some of the miniscule type
PM> in Windows, so when these low vision folk come to a dialog
PM> box or need to invoke help or whatever, and they encounter
PM> what is for them literally unreadable type, they are forced
PM> to give up. 

W31 fonts are larger in general than W9x fonts. Arial TT can be
downloaded for W31 for free from Microsoft as an 'update' to
W31 (linked at my website AMOF). Arial Bold is quite readable
when the display driver is set for large fonts. The spacing of
user displays can be altered somewhat (which I have done in my
INI files). 

PM> 2. They hate the mouse. All in all Windows is a major
PM> frustration to them. Here's an example of what would be a
PM> =mild= attitude to Windows here. 

Typos can be frustrating too. The semi-colon and colon appear
much the same even in DOS text-mode and the curly brackets,
parenthesis, and others are difficult to see accurately IMO. 

PM> Quoting: "Utterly useless, eyesores, DOS programs are far,
PM> better. No useles scroll bars, tool bars, clutter, buttons,
PM> junk, eye hurting fonts. I played for months with these
PM> cretinous programs trying to make them work for me, but
PM> kept going back to DOS...." 

Understood and I don't entirely disagree. 

>> With a little effort you could put wordpad.exe into
>> PeepHole, my W31 on a diskette, to replace notepad.exe and
>> not even need hard drives in the machines. 

Make that WRITE.EXE, not WORDPAD.EXE. 

PM> I don't quite follow. And what's a little effort? [You're
PM> speaking to a barely technologically literate person here.]
PM> I've noticed you mentioning PeepHole before and it sounds
PM> intriguing; W31 on a diskette! Let me think about this.
PM> I'll have to get back to you. 

If necessary I think I can whip up a WRITE.EXE version of
PeepHole in a few minutes. 

PM> The machines we have, however, are substantial enough;
PM> that's not really the problem. We just need a simple way of
PM> getting to True Type or some equivalent. 

True Type does not exist for DOS that I am aware of. It does,
however exist within W31 and I do think reading Gutenberg
e-books is doable. 

PM> I was just about to write that decent monitors [which we
PM> can't afford] are also a major problem but I really think
PM> as far as these people are concerned that it's mainly that
PM> damn Windows. 

The dot-pitch is important. I've used several variations and
after a few hours your eyes can 'tell' you how poor the
dot-pitch is on a cheap monitor. Newer/larger monitors all seem
to have a relatively sloppy dot-pitch apprently due to the
limitations of the picture tube? 

PM> Here's a discussion that I've been following on
PM> sci.med.vision that might give you some inkling of what I'm
PM> trying to explain. Although these are normally sighted
PM> people complaining, it covers some of the bases we have to
PM> deal with. See if you can pick the villain. Needless to
PM> say, most of the solutions are out of our price range. 

PM> Quoting: Subject: Nearsightedness and LCD Monitors
PM> Newsgroups: sci.med.vision Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 04:15:19
PM> GMT === From: "Alex R"  I'm
PM> planning to upgrade my PC's monitor, and I'm trying to
PM> decide between a nice 19" CRT and a low-end 17" LCD. My
PM> main criterion will be which type of monitor, if any, will
PM> go more toward slowing the progression of my
PM> nearsightedness. If there is no known difference between
PM> the effects of a CRT and an LCD on nearsightedness, I'd
PM> like to save some cash and get the CRT. My recent search of
PM> this group's archive showed that it has not been proven
PM> whether using a monitor causes nearsightedness, but I'd
PM> like any insight that anyone can offer. Alex 

My 'advice' would be to research dot-pitch. Find the lowest
numerical dot-pitch monitor even if it's not as large it will
be better in the long run. 

>
>        ,                                        ,
>      o/      Charles_Angelich  - DOS Ghost       \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >  www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/faf/  < \   __\__
 

___ * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/

--- Maximus/2 3.01