[dannypgh]

> Emacs and Emacsspeak in particular. Emacs is the richest text-based user experience out there;

My naive expectation is that non-visual editors like ed and ex would be easier to use than visual editors like emacs and vi, but I'm curious to learn more about how people work here. How well do visual editors interact with screen readers? The screen readers would presumably need to offer an interface to reread parts of the screen, and this seems redundant with the non-visual editors that take commands to print like ranges.

[josephkern]

Emacs has a unique feature as well, it can become the entire gui for anything you are trying to do; web browser, email client, IRC client, etc. all converted into plain text.

I even had it setup a few years ago to send and read tweets.

[shakna]

I go temporarily blind at various unpredictable times, so I'm not 100% in the non-visual bucket, but I am sometimes. (Simplifying grossly).

I find next to no difference between vim, nano, and Sublime Text for useability under a screen reader. You can focus, grab menus, issue macros, all the same.

For the most part, the reader won't jump back to re-read something to you, unless you ask it to. But you can make it jump between real panes and text panes in much the same way.

(There can be a little configuration involved, for both curses and graphics based applications, depending on your reader, but it's generally a one-time setup that someone else has done first.)