[8bitsrule]

Revealing that, after 30 years of Internet, someone's actually confronting this situation for the first time. So's the word 'gaps' ... as if the English Channel is a 'gap' for swimmers.

Equally revealing is the audio quality of most CPU screen-readers (regardless of platform). Usually, not far from the crappy first attempts of 30 years ago.

But then, hey, it's a small market, right?

[asadotzler]

Most people who depend on screen readers prefer the synthetic voices for their consistency which can allow them "read" at far faster speeds. I've been working for a couple of years to reach the speed one of my friend regularly works at, about 900 WPM. I topped out around 550 WPM with the human-sounding voices and then almost immediately got to 650 moving to a synthetic voices. Still a long way to go to hit 900, but I'm certain it's possible, and nearly certain it's impossible with text that's voiced to sound human-like.

[lproven]

I've been occasionally helping a blind friend of mine with his PC since 2005. His screenreader talks at about 600wpm or more and after 20 years of practice I can't understand it.

I speedread and can read text faster than his computer's voice -- but not by much. It is very impressive, and very hard to use.

But I am the only sighted person he's met who can use his PC. I navigate Windows mostly by keyboard, and he has no mouse. It slows me down slightly but I can still use it.

(He does have a screen on his family computer, so sighted family and friends can watch films with him. His work one has no screen.)