<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>tim o'brien photos &#187; pogue</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.timobrienphotos.com/tag/pogue/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.timobrienphotos.com</link>
	<description>A blind photographer's exploration of his vision through photography and accessibility.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:59:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Pogue Asks: Why Are PDFs Still in Portrait Orientation?</title>
		<link>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2009/03/pogue-asks-why-are-pdfs-still-in-portrait-orientation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2009/03/pogue-asks-why-are-pdfs-still-in-portrait-orientation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[large print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[idea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[layout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monitors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nyt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nytimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pdf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[portrait]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[portrait mode]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timobrienphotos.com/?p=2535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In today&#8217;s Pogue’s Posts Blog, Pogue repeats a question from one of his readers; &#8220;Why Are PDFs Still in Portrait Orientation?&#8221; It is a question tha t I have been asking for a while not, but one for which I offer a better solution: reflow is better than landscape. Why Are PDFs Still in Portrait Orientation? From today’s mailbag: Hi Dave! Since you’ve been writing about pet peeves recently, here’s one of mine: Why are PDF documents still mostly in portrait instead of landscape orientation? Be it eBooks, user guides for software, or anything else that is clearly intended to be viewed mainly on screen, it mostly comes in vertical orientation, requiring a lot of zooming in and out, plus some extra scrolling (if you don’t have one of those fancy pivot monitors, that is). I suppose it’s mostly because programs like Word, InDesign, etc. initially come up with this page orientation because it’s what we’re used to; when it gets printed, it’s mostly in portrait mode. But… who prints that kind of stuff anymore? Most of the PDFs I read never end up on paper, so it would make sense if electronic documentation came in landscape orientation. Wouldn’t it? [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2009/03/pogue-asks-why-are-pdfs-still-in-portrait-orientation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Accessing Twitter from the iPhone</title>
		<link>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2009/03/accessing-twitter-from-the-iphone/</link>
		<comments>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2009/03/accessing-twitter-from-the-iphone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:01:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[large print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accessibility feature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[app]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blogging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[color scheme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disabled]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[email]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feature set]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[font]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[image]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interface]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iphone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone app]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[itunes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[landscape mode]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mobile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[text]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Touch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zoom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timobrienphotos.com/?p=1545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Twitter calls itself a a microbloogging service. What the heck is a microblog? Basically, it is a mix of blogging, text messaging and emailing. The New York Times&#8217; David Pogue offere his take on Twitter in Twitter? It’s What You Make It. Pogue is right. Twitter is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. I will delve no further into Twitterology. Twitter accessibility has attracted much attention. There are a multitude of ways to access Twitter from your desktop. The most obvious is through the Twitter web site, but there are dozens of widget, apps and plug ins that do the job, each with it own accessibility issue. A popular new access point is through Accessible Twitter, which has a clean, screen-reader-friendly interface. How accessible is Twitter on the iPhone? Besides receiving tweets as expensive text messages, there are multiple iPhone apps that access your Twitter stream as well as Twitter&#8217;s mobile web site. Here, I will compare the accessibility of two of the more popular iPhone apps, Twitteriffic and TwitterFon, with that of the mobile web site. TwitterFon, as you can see in the first image, has a fairly standard visual look with black font on a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2009/03/accessing-twitter-from-the-iphone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Finally, Pogue Speaks to US</title>
		<link>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2007/12/finally-pogue-speaks-to-us/</link>
		<comments>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2007/12/finally-pogue-speaks-to-us/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 05:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[large print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pogue]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timobrienphotos.com/?p=340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Pogue over at the NY Times has addressed our main issue in his blog: Gadgets With the Blind in Mind &#8211; Pogueâ€™s Posts. A look through the comments so far (over fifty as of now) shows quite a range of responses from ignorant trolls to many insightful contributions. It is worth reading the comments (if you can drain the red from you eyes from the reaction to the troll comments). If you find this post useful or interesting, please consider buying me a cup of coffee.Related Posts:Pogueâ€™s Posts &#8211; As We Get Older, Type Gets Smaller &#8211; Technology &#8211; New York Times BlogAccessibility FrictionPogue Asks: Why Are PDFs Still in Portrait Orientation?On the Side: Inaccessible accessibilityAccessibility Switch]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2007/12/finally-pogue-speaks-to-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pogueâ€™s Posts &#8211; As We Get Older, Type Gets Smaller &#8211; Technology &#8211; New York Times Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2006/08/pogue%e2%80%99s-posts-as-we-get-older-type-gets-smaller-technology-new-york-times-blog/</link>
		<comments>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2006/08/pogue%e2%80%99s-posts-as-we-get-older-type-gets-smaller-technology-new-york-times-blog/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[large print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fonts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[size]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[text]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timobrienphotos.com/?p=328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pogue&#8217;s post this past week, As We Get Older, Type Gets Smaller, addresses a major issue that I think about too much. I reset the screen resolution, override default fonts and sometimes use Zoomtext. If you find this post useful or interesting, please consider buying me a cup of coffee.Related Posts:Finally, Pogue Speaks to USPogue Asks: Why Are PDFs Still in Portrait Orientation?On the Side: Inaccessible accessibilityAccessibility SwitchNYT&#8217;s Tip of the Week: Desktop Magnifying Glass]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2006/08/pogue%e2%80%99s-posts-as-we-get-older-type-gets-smaller-technology-new-york-times-blog/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On the Side: Inaccessible accessibility</title>
		<link>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2005/08/on-the-side-inaccessible-accessibility/</link>
		<comments>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2005/08/on-the-side-inaccessible-accessibility/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[large print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tip]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timobrienphotos.com/?p=310</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A couple of months ago, the Times&#8217; David Pogue wrote an article, Spending Time to Save Time, about why we do not take enough advantage of available computer technology that could make our lives easier, more productive or both. The lessons Pogue discusses apply directly to adoption of any level of &#8216;assistive technology&#8217; whether it is a fancy screen reader or a simple Internet Explorer trick to make the text larger. I have spent countless hours finding these little ways to make using my computer easier and it has been an investment too high for most people. I would like to extend Mr. Pogue&#8217;s call on software makers to make accessibility feature more accessible. If you find this post useful or interesting, please consider buying me a cup of coffee.Related Posts:More Unabridged Auiobooks!Medialoper Â» Thatâ€™s What I Like: Audible.comMFA: Ansel AdamsFirst success with &#34;More Unabridged Auiobooks!&#34;AIC: From Darkroom to Digital: Photographic Variations]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2005/08/on-the-side-inaccessible-accessibility/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Accessibility Switch</title>
		<link>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2005/05/accessibility-switch/</link>
		<comments>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2005/05/accessibility-switch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2005 14:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[large print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accessiblitly switch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tip]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timobrienphotos.com/?p=307</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The technology guy for the NY Times posted some thought about an issue that had not crossed my mind, &#8220;But What About the Color Blind?&#8220;. I think that browsers should come with some default accessibility option. I do not mean the complicated range of options available now, but a simple on/off switch. This switch would automatically reformat all websites in some easy to read, high contrast and nice looking style, something that uniformly addresses the widest range of accessibility issues. For more advanced users, they could leave all the tweaks available now. For those who prefer simplicity, this accessibility switch could make a huge difference in the quality of internet life. Such a feature on publicly available machines, at kiosks or in computer labs for example, would allow anyone to make the web accessible with the touch of a single button. I suspect that the technology exists already. There is something called a style sheet that controls the look and feel of a web site. All it would take is a web designer could develop a style sheet with the characteristics listed above and the browser designers incorporated a single button that strained all web content through that style sheet. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.timobrienphotos.com/2005/05/accessibility-switch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

