Talk:Screen magnifier

Seemingly out-of-place product reference
I don't believe the reference to www.issist.com and iZoom (added by 199.43.32.68 in this edit) belongs in this article, at least not in the way it currently is. It reads mostly like an advertisement IMO, and the fact that there are no other products referenced only emphasizes its promotional aspect. I would like to revert to the previous version by AED, and will do so if there are no objections in the coming days. Capi 04:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems the reference has been removed in the meantime, by Jeffthejiff, in this edit. Nevermind, I suppose... Capi 14:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just noticed it whilst editing the rest of the article and it sounded like an advert so i removed it. Sorry, i didnt read the talk page first.. -- jeffthejiff  ( talk ) 14:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem. I was going to remove it anyway; only reason I posted in Talk first was because I didn't want to revert without hearing what the editor who put it in might have to say. Capi 19:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

ZoomText
1&only and Argon233, if you two would bring your debate/discussion HERE rather than continuing to edit war, I'm sure everyone would appreciate it. I've re-added the reference as the AFD on ZoomText is leaning toward keep, but I don't have a big stake in this. Pages should be edited through consensus, not bullheadedness, folks. -- nae'blis 18:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no point of referring to ZoomText over any other app. I agree that it should be removed from the article text. --Karnesky 21:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Some fact: ZoomText is commercial program and article about it is pure SPAM. Link is indirect SPAM, but still SPAM. Do I add article about iZoom and put link too. In the same manner like ZoomText.It will be fair. Or much better: make articles about all screen magnifiers ( both sharewares and freewares ) and put their links too. IMAO for each one can be found some caracteristic that ZoomText does not have. Argon233 do you agree with that? Let's repeat all again. I have my own screen magnifier and it is shareware ( guess which one ). Do I make article about them and put the link? For the record: iZoom is not mine, I do not own www.magnifier.org. --1&amp;only 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree that all products on this list should have articles on Wikipedia. If OOo thinks these products are notable enough to reference in this documentation, that's good enough for me. -- Argon233&ensp;  T &ensp; C  @ &ensp; &notin; &ensp; 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Only frewware product would be liststed, otherwise it is spam. So we have now openoffice vs. www.magnifier.org. --1&amp;only 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A Google search on ZoomText+magnifier brings up about 76,400 results. A Google search on iZoom+magnifier brings up about 590 results. While this isn't a perfect test, it gives a fair rough measure of the difference in usage (and hence of notibility) between the products. Note that I included the word magnifier in the Google seach in order to screen out the large number of unrelated products that are returned when querying just on iZoom.


 * Also, Karnesky, I agree with your moving the link down to the see also section. Thank you for taking a fresh aproach. -- Argon233&ensp;  T &ensp; C  @ &ensp; &notin; &ensp; 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Google search on this, google search on that. So what?. ZoommText is beter than iZoom? ... Stop with SPAM. Karnesky clearly say : "I agree that it should be removed from the article text", NOT "moving the link down". I was wrote several question. Would you answer Argon233? --1&amp;only 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was the one who moved it down to "See also." It was out of place in the main text, but there is no reason to have a freeware bias in the internal links (Office suite links to both MS Office and OO.o, for example).  --Karnesky 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sub-2x zoom
Many products allow for zooms less than 2x. 1.5x seems fairly common, but certainly there are programs that magnify only 10% (1.1x) & I bet there are packages that allow anything between 1x and 2x. Also, many do use the term "1x" to refer to the case of no magnification. As such, I think 1x-16x is appropriate for the text. --Karnesky 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thera are packages which allow magnification between 1x and 2x with entering any appropriate value. From the side of developer it is very easy to implement that kind of features. Some of them allow magnification less than 1x. --1&amp;only 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted to have 1x at the low range. I did not lower it below 1x, as it is less common & the text doesn't discuss demagnification. --Karnesky 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Karnesky, you are of course correct that there are packages that do less than 2x, but saying 1x seemed odd, since that means no magnification, and this article is specific about Screen magnifiers. At second look it seems reasonable to say this, as it would be more awkward to try to define in the article the smallest degree of magnification available above 1x. -- Argon233&ensp;  T &ensp; C  @ &ensp; &notin; &ensp; 15:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If magnification became smaller then 1x then functon of magnificator chage to for example joke program. I have thought how picture would be for magnification les then 0x, just inverted I assume. --1&amp;only 08:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback request for users of screen magnifiers
Hi. I'm trying to learn about how exactly editors use the Wikimedia sites, with tools like screen magnifiers. Please see the short list of questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility, and help me get the word out to other editors who might be able to give comments on this. Much thanks! –Quiddity (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)