E-mail List Archives
Thread: BrowseAloud
Number of posts in this thread: 26 (In chronological order)
From: LSnider
Date: Wed, Mar 23 2011 12:42PM
Subject: BrowseAloud
No previous message | Next message →
Hi All,
Someone just sent this to me...The Library of Congress finally updated their
web site. They now have a speech enabled feature using BrowseAloud. The info
is at the bottom of this page:
http://www.loc.gov/access/web.html
It was interesting to me that they put this speech enabled link at the
bottom of their main page, but at least it is there (I haven't studied their
code yet to see where it comes up with a screen reader).
What do you think of this strategy? Have you used this?
Thanks
Lisa
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Mar 23 2011 12:57PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi
I fail to see the point of such a feature, honestly, and I think they
should be putting more effort into good page design, rather than
custom start speech on their web page )by "they", I mean designers in
general, I know nothing good or bad about the accessibility of this
particular webpage).
For one thing, users who need Browse Aloud (at least totally blind
users) cannot know it is there when they log onto a page, so it would
have to autostart when they log on, but that would annoy general
users.
At least I hope they put an AccessKey to start it (at least for
returning users they would know to press that key combination). I
wonder if Browse Aloud offers navigation by html elements like
headings, lists, check boxes, if it enables user to interact with a
form using edit fiels and buttons, works with Javascript and does all
those things people have come to expect from screen readers.
I think in the modern days of free and open source screen readers,
like NVDA, this effort is misguided.
Of course there may be user scenarios I am not aware of that are
beneficial, I take the blind perspective first, being a blind user,
and I happy bow to people with superior knowledge on ths subject, and
would be happy to learn that this has a purpose.
Cheers
-Birkir
On 3/23/11, LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Someone just sent this to me...The Library of Congress finally updated their
> web site. They now have a speech enabled feature using BrowseAloud. The info
> is at the bottom of this page:
> http://www.loc.gov/access/web.html
>
> It was interesting to me that they put this speech enabled link at the
> bottom of their main page, but at least it is there (I haven't studied their
> code yet to see where it comes up with a screen reader).
>
> What do you think of this strategy? Have you used this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Lisa
>
From: J. B-Vincent
Date: Wed, Mar 23 2011 1:03PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
BrowseAloud (or, as it calls itself, "Browsyloud") is NOT a screen reader; it's a speech output utility for people who can see and use a mouse (e.g., people with learning disabilities). BrowseAloud is free to the end user, but very costly for the web designer to implement.
--- On Wed, 3/23/11, LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
From: LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 11:59 AM
Hi Birkir,
That was my immediate thought too...Is it a way to circumvent a well put
together web site? Their site was pretty bad before, so this is at least an
improvement. I am working in the archives field in accessibility so what the
Library of Congress does is of great interest to me. I guess at least they
are trying, unlike my Canadian government that is appealing a lawsuit
brought against it for non accessible web sites.
They don't put price on their site for BrowseAloud, so that was another
yellow flag for me as well. I would love to hear from someone who has used
this method and why.
I can only speak as a sighted user, but I think software like NVDA has
changed the web. It seems like a huge step forward, as it seems to be easy
to use and free (I found it took me seconds to work it, but again I am a
sighted user :). I would be curious to know what you and others think about
that too.
Cheers
Lisa
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi
>
> I fail to see the point of such a feature, honestly, and I think they
> should be putting more effort into good page design, rather than
> custom start speech on their web page )by "they", I mean designers in
> general, I know nothing good or bad about the accessibility of this
> particular webpage).
> For one thing, users who need Browse Aloud (at least totally blind
> users) cannot know it is there when they log onto a page, so it would
> have to autostart when they log on, but that would annoy general
> users.
> At least I hope they put an AccessKey to start it (at least for
> returning users they would know to press that key combination). I
> wonder if Browse Aloud offers navigation by html elements like
> headings, lists, check boxes, if it enables user to interact with a
> form using edit fiels and buttons, works with Javascript and does all
> those things people have come to expect from screen readers.
>
> I think in the modern days of free and open source screen readers,
> like NVDA, this effort is misguided.
> Of course there may be user scenarios I am not aware of that are
> beneficial, I take the blind perspective first, being a blind user,
> and I happy bow to people with superior knowledge on ths subject, and
> would be happy to learn that this has a purpose.
> Cheers
> -Birkir
>
>
> On 3/23/11, LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Someone just sent this to me...The Library of Congress finally updated
> their
> > web site. They now have a speech enabled feature using BrowseAloud. The
> info
> > is at the bottom of this page:
> > http://www.loc.gov/access/web.html
>
>
From: LSnider
Date: Wed, Mar 23 2011 1:09PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Birkir,
That was my immediate thought too...Is it a way to circumvent a well put
together web site? Their site was pretty bad before, so this is at least an
improvement. I am working in the archives field in accessibility so what the
Library of Congress does is of great interest to me. I guess at least they
are trying, unlike my Canadian government that is appealing a lawsuit
brought against it for non accessible web sites.
They don't put price on their site for BrowseAloud, so that was another
yellow flag for me as well. I would love to hear from someone who has used
this method and why.
I can only speak as a sighted user, but I think software like NVDA has
changed the web. It seems like a huge step forward, as it seems to be easy
to use and free (I found it took me seconds to work it, but again I am a
sighted user :). I would be curious to know what you and others think about
that too.
Cheers
Lisa
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi
>
> I fail to see the point of such a feature, honestly, and I think they
> should be putting more effort into good page design, rather than
> custom start speech on their web page )by "they", I mean designers in
> general, I know nothing good or bad about the accessibility of this
> particular webpage).
> For one thing, users who need Browse Aloud (at least totally blind
> users) cannot know it is there when they log onto a page, so it would
> have to autostart when they log on, but that would annoy general
> users.
> At least I hope they put an AccessKey to start it (at least for
> returning users they would know to press that key combination). I
> wonder if Browse Aloud offers navigation by html elements like
> headings, lists, check boxes, if it enables user to interact with a
> form using edit fiels and buttons, works with Javascript and does all
> those things people have come to expect from screen readers.
>
> I think in the modern days of free and open source screen readers,
> like NVDA, this effort is misguided.
> Of course there may be user scenarios I am not aware of that are
> beneficial, I take the blind perspective first, being a blind user,
> and I happy bow to people with superior knowledge on ths subject, and
> would be happy to learn that this has a purpose.
> Cheers
> -Birkir
>
>
> On 3/23/11, LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Someone just sent this to me...The Library of Congress finally updated
> their
> > web site. They now have a speech enabled feature using BrowseAloud. The
> info
> > is at the bottom of this page:
> > http://www.loc.gov/access/web.html
>
>
From: LSnider
Date: Wed, Mar 23 2011 1:18PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
I guess I wonder why a sighted user (like me) wouldn't just use NVDA instead
of this kind of utility (thank you for correcting me there)? That is what I
meant by my comment, as it is still important to try and make your site
accessible (I see it as an all encompassing issue not just for one set of
users). I think I will contact them to ask about more details on what code
has to be there...that may answer my questions about it.
Cheers
L
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:02 PM, J. B-Vincent < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> BrowseAloud (or, as it calls itself, "Browsyloud") is NOT a screen reader;
> it's a speech output utility for people who can see and use a mouse (e.g.,
> people with learning disabilities). BrowseAloud is free to the end user, but
> very costly for the web designer to implement.
>
> > On 3/23/11, LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Someone just sent this to me...The Library of Congress finally updated
> > their
> > > web site. They now have a speech enabled feature using BrowseAloud. The
> > info
> > > is at the bottom of this page:
> > > http://www.loc.gov/access/web.html
> >
> >
>
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Mar 23 2011 1:30PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
In general, and you can call me idealistic, I am extremely weary of
solutions where the developer of a web page has to write a lot of
special code to make the page accessible to a group of people.
The ideal solution should always be to put the information in place
that is necessary, and then leave it up to Assistive Technology
developers to grab this information and convert it into a user
interface that works for the target audience.
I do not know exactly how a visually impaired user experiences the
web, but I know what I need to do in order to allow a screen
magnification software to get the info it needs. As new technology,
new fonts and other improvements that benefit visually impaired users,
becomes available I do not have to do anything to update my page, but
if I implement the technology for a specific software for them I have
to change the implementation and worry about these things. I think we
put developers in a hopeless position if they have to understand all
the disabilities there are and allow for special solutions for all of
them on their web page.
On 3/23/11, LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I guess I wonder why a sighted user (like me) wouldn't just use NVDA instead
> of this kind of utility (thank you for correcting me there)? That is what I
> meant by my comment, as it is still important to try and make your site
> accessible (I see it as an all encompassing issue not just for one set of
> users). I think I will contact them to ask about more details on what code
> has to be there...that may answer my questions about it.
>
> Cheers
>
> L
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:02 PM, J. B-Vincent < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> BrowseAloud (or, as it calls itself, "Browsyloud") is NOT a screen reader;
>> it's a speech output utility for people who can see and use a mouse (e.g.,
>> people with learning disabilities). BrowseAloud is free to the end user,
>> but
>> very costly for the web designer to implement.
>>
>> > On 3/23/11, LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> > > Hi All,
>> > >
>> > > Someone just sent this to me...The Library of Congress finally updated
>> > their
>> > > web site. They now have a speech enabled feature using BrowseAloud.
>> > > The
>> > info
>> > > is at the bottom of this page:
>> > > http://www.loc.gov/access/web.html
>> >
>> >
>>
From: Jon Brundage
Date: Wed, Mar 23 2011 2:51PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Birkir,
There really is not a way for assistive technologies to work independent of
the code base provided on a web site. For example, how would a screen reader
handle an image link that has no ALT attribute? How about a series of links
all worded as "click here"? Flash with no control labels? I'm not sure what
you are really saying in this post. Surely you do not mean to say "Code the
page any way you want and leave it to Assistive Technology to figure it all
out"?
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Birkir R. Gunnarsson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
> In general, and you can call me idealistic, I am extremely weary of
> solutions where the developer of a web page has to write a lot of
> special code to make the page accessible to a group of people.
> The ideal solution should always be to put the information in place
> that is necessary, and then leave it up to Assistive Technology
> developers to grab this information and convert it into a user
> interface that works for the target audience.
> I do not know exactly how a visually impaired user experiences the
> web, but I know what I need to do in order to allow a screen
> magnification software to get the info it needs. As new technology,
> new fonts and other improvements that benefit visually impaired users,
> becomes available I do not have to do anything to update my page, but
> if I implement the technology for a specific software for them I have
> to change the implementation and worry about these things. I think we
> put developers in a hopeless position if they have to understand all
> the disabilities there are and allow for special solutions for all of
> them on their web page.
>
>
> On 3/23/11, LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> I guess I wonder why a sighted user (like me) wouldn't just use NVDA
>> instead
>> of this kind of utility (thank you for correcting me there)? That is what
>> I
>> meant by my comment, as it is still important to try and make your site
>> accessible (I see it as an all encompassing issue not just for one set of
>> users). I think I will contact them to ask about more details on what
>> code
>> has to be there...that may answer my questions about it.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> L
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:02 PM, J. B-Vincent < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>>> BrowseAloud (or, as it calls itself, "Browsyloud") is NOT a screen
>>> reader;
>>> it's a speech output utility for people who can see and use a mouse
>>> (e.g.,
>>> people with learning disabilities). BrowseAloud is free to the end user,
>>> but
>>> very costly for the web designer to implement.
>>>
>>> > On 3/23/11, LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>> > > Hi All,
>>> > >
>>> > > Someone just sent this to me...The Library of Congress finally
>>> > > updated
>>> > their
>>> > > web site. They now have a speech enabled feature using BrowseAloud.
>>> > > The
>>> > info
>>> > > is at the bottom of this page:
>>> > > http://www.loc.gov/access/web.html
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Mar 23 2011 3:18PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi John and all
Oh no, I am certainly not saying that. I am worrid if developers have
to put in tag specifically for a screen reader X, another tag
specifically for screen reader Y, a tag for LD software etc.
There must be basic guidelines for code that is accessible to all
Assistive Technologies, which the WCAG and the Authoring guidelines,
aim to be, and if developers follow that, the Assistive Technology can
turn that page into the ideal output for the users.
Basically I think there should be a universsally recommended design of
pages that technology expects and can turn into good output, it is not
the general developer's job to maintain assistive technology, but
merely to make sure code follows guidelines that benefit all Assistive
Technology software.
On 3/23/11, Jon Brundage < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi Birkir,
>
> There really is not a way for assistive technologies to work independent of
> the code base provided on a web site. For example, how would a screen reader
> handle an image link that has no ALT attribute? How about a series of links
> all worded as "click here"? Flash with no control labels? I'm not sure what
> you are really saying in this post. Surely you do not mean to say "Code the
> page any way you want and leave it to Assistive Technology to figure it all
> out"?
>
> Jon
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Birkir R. Gunnarsson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
>
>
>> In general, and you can call me idealistic, I am extremely weary of
>> solutions where the developer of a web page has to write a lot of
>> special code to make the page accessible to a group of people.
>> The ideal solution should always be to put the information in place
>> that is necessary, and then leave it up to Assistive Technology
>> developers to grab this information and convert it into a user
>> interface that works for the target audience.
>> I do not know exactly how a visually impaired user experiences the
>> web, but I know what I need to do in order to allow a screen
>> magnification software to get the info it needs. As new technology,
>> new fonts and other improvements that benefit visually impaired users,
>> becomes available I do not have to do anything to update my page, but
>> if I implement the technology for a specific software for them I have
>> to change the implementation and worry about these things. I think we
>> put developers in a hopeless position if they have to understand all
>> the disabilities there are and allow for special solutions for all of
>> them on their web page.
>>
>>
>> On 3/23/11, LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>> I guess I wonder why a sighted user (like me) wouldn't just use NVDA
>>> instead
>>> of this kind of utility (thank you for correcting me there)? That is what
>>>
>>> I
>>> meant by my comment, as it is still important to try and make your site
>>> accessible (I see it as an all encompassing issue not just for one set of
>>> users). I think I will contact them to ask about more details on what
>>> code
>>> has to be there...that may answer my questions about it.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> L
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:02 PM, J. B-Vincent < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>>> BrowseAloud (or, as it calls itself, "Browsyloud") is NOT a screen
>>>> reader;
>>>> it's a speech output utility for people who can see and use a mouse
>>>> (e.g.,
>>>> people with learning disabilities). BrowseAloud is free to the end user,
>>>> but
>>>> very costly for the web designer to implement.
>>>>
>>>> > On 3/23/11, LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>> > > Hi All,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Someone just sent this to me...The Library of Congress finally
>>>> > > updated
>>>> > their
>>>> > > web site. They now have a speech enabled feature using BrowseAloud.
>>>> > > The
>>>> > info
>>>> > > is at the bottom of this page:
>>>> > > http://www.loc.gov/access/web.html
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
From: Webb, KerryA
Date: Wed, Mar 23 2011 3:39PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Birkir wrote:
>
> In general, and you can call me idealistic, I am extremely weary of
> solutions where the developer of a web page has to write a lot of
> special code to make the page accessible to a group of people.
I'll happily call you idealistic, but if you look at Browsealoud you'll see that the web developer does not have to write a lot of special code. It doesn't work that way.
And, as it's been pointed out, it's directed at people with cognitive disabilities who'll benefit from the content being read out, rather than people with vision impairment.
Kerry
--
Kerry Webb
Manager, Policy Office
Shared Services | ACT Government
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Mar 23 2011 3:54PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Kerry and all.
If it is used as such, and the rest of the page is accessible to
screen reader users, I happily stand corrected and applaud the
developers the extra effort.
If any self-voicing software is used as a replacement for good web
page design and screen reader accessibility, that's where I get
worried.
On 3/23/11, Webb, KerryA < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>
>
> Birkir wrote:
>>
>> In general, and you can call me idealistic, I am extremely weary of
>> solutions where the developer of a web page has to write a lot of
>> special code to make the page accessible to a group of people.
>
> I'll happily call you idealistic, but if you look at Browsealoud you'll see
> that the web developer does not have to write a lot of special code. It
> doesn't work that way.
>
> And, as it's been pointed out, it's directed at people with cognitive
> disabilities who'll benefit from the content being read out, rather than
> people with vision impairment.
>
> Kerry
> --
> Kerry Webb
> Manager, Policy Office
> Shared Services | ACT Government
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all
> copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You
> should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any
> other person.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
From: Keith (mteye)
Date: Wed, Mar 23 2011 4:27PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Not sure what you mean by the stragedy behind it.
That the link was at the bottom of the page? It has to go somewhere, and it
seemed that the article touting the concern of accessibility was intended to
be the main focus, and the following segments were to show the methods taken
to do so.
That they offer talking technology? Personally, if a disabled person is
going to need speech technology, they probably already have it in the first
place, and a talking plugin on a page just seems redundant to me. It's worth
a try, and as soon as I get done typing this, I plan on downloading the
plugin to see exactly how it works.
I suppose if a person really needed it, they could first get a sighted
helper to place a shortcut on their desktop, and assign hotkeys to open it
up to enjoy the accessible page.
I don't anticipate the web page voice will be any more flexible, or
intuitive to use than ascreen reader, but maybe it could feasibly read an
object that might otherwise be hidden by screen reading technology.
just some observations.
keith H.
-----Original Message-----
From: LSnider
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:42 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
Hi All,
Someone just sent this to me...The Library of Congress finally updated their
web site. They now have a speech enabled feature using BrowseAloud. The info
is at the bottom of this page:
http://www.loc.gov/access/web.html
It was interesting to me that they put this speech enabled link at the
bottom of their main page, but at least it is there (I haven't studied their
code yet to see where it comes up with a screen reader).
What do you think of this strategy? Have you used this?
Thanks
Lisa
From: Giovanni Duarte
Date: Wed, Mar 23 2011 6:24PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi,
I have actually used BrowseAloud to the implementation level. This is a
great technology and the person who developed the application was to help
his father who was losing sight - if I recall correctly.
Anyhow, remember that it is not only visual impairment that will benefit for
speech technologies. There are students who have learning disabilities and
reading and listening at the same time is a great tool for them. In
addition, this tool has more "powers". For example, you can export the
speech to an MP3 file on the fly or use translation and dictionary tools.
They even have a highliting feature. I see it more as a study tools that can
enhance your learning experience. I work for an university in we were about
to implemented but for other reasons we couldn't.
BTW: This plugin doesn't need any installation and works in any browsers. I
have been involved in an MathML project and it also works with MathML. It is
a well-developed tool.
Giovanni.
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Keith (mteye)
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 5:28 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
Not sure what you mean by the stragedy behind it.
That the link was at the bottom of the page? It has to go somewhere, and it
seemed that the article touting the concern of accessibility was intended to
be the main focus, and the following segments were to show the methods taken
to do so.
That they offer talking technology? Personally, if a disabled person is
going to need speech technology, they probably already have it in the first
place, and a talking plugin on a page just seems redundant to me. It's worth
a try, and as soon as I get done typing this, I plan on downloading the
plugin to see exactly how it works.
I suppose if a person really needed it, they could first get a sighted
helper to place a shortcut on their desktop, and assign hotkeys to open it
up to enjoy the accessible page.
I don't anticipate the web page voice will be any more flexible, or
intuitive to use than ascreen reader, but maybe it could feasibly read an
object that might otherwise be hidden by screen reading technology.
just some observations.
keith H.
-----Original Message-----
From: LSnider
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:42 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
Hi All,
Someone just sent this to me...The Library of Congress finally updated their
web site. They now have a speech enabled feature using BrowseAloud. The info
is at the bottom of this page:
http://www.loc.gov/access/web.html
It was interesting to me that they put this speech enabled link at the
bottom of their main page, but at least it is there (I haven't studied their
code yet to see where it comes up with a screen reader).
What do you think of this strategy? Have you used this?
Thanks
Lisa
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Mar 24 2011 4:54AM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Personally, I dislike BrowseAloud's business model. The plugin works
potentially with every site, but as a client you need to pay them to get
added to an explicit whitelist of URLs that unlocks its functionality.
They've been offering discounts/free accounts to government and
education for a while, to drum up apparent adoption.
(oh, and the fact that, back in the days, there were incidents of
obvious astroturfing campaigns like
http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=22009 doesn't fill me with
confidence either).
Users that need speech are far better served with having something
running on their machine that works on all sites, not just on select
ones that paid to get BA to run there.
IMHO, of course,
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
From: Peter Krantz
Date: Thu, Mar 24 2011 5:06AM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:53, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Users that need speech are far better served with having something
> running on their machine that works on all sites, not just on select
> ones that paid to get BA to run there.
I can imagine several use cases where on-site speech could be
beneficial (using someone elses terminal etc.) but as you indicate, a
need for speech is probably better served with locally available
software, which may provide better means for configuration and may
work in other software as well (e.g. a Word document).
Has anyone seen any research on the benefits for this type of service?
What is the main reason to implement it?
Regards,
Peter
From: Stephen L Noble
Date: Thu, Mar 24 2011 6:30AM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
There are a variety of reasons why a service like BrowseAloud is used.
The primary use cases would be for portions of the general public like
the senior population with sight which is becoming limited, non-native
speakers, and members of the general public who have learning and mild
cognitive disabilities but are not being served by any type of
rehabilitation agency and so do not have access to funding for assistive
technology, or may not consider themselves "disabled." It is the same
rationale in many ways for some of the accessibility tools built into
modern operating systems, like the "ease of access" settings in Windows.
None of this is meant to replace the role for assistive technology, nor
the need for accessibility in websites.
------------------------------------
-- Steve Noble
Chair, National Technology Task Force
Learning Disabilities Association of America
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
502-969-3088
--------------
Disclaimer: The opinions and comments made in email are those of the
author, and do not necessarily represent the official position of any
organization unless explicitly stated.
>>> Peter Krantz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 3/24/2011 7:04 AM >>>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:53, Patrick H. Lauke
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Users that need speech are far better served with having something
> running on their machine that works on all sites, not just on select
> ones that paid to get BA to run there.
I can imagine several use cases where on-site speech could be
beneficial (using someone elses terminal etc.) but as you indicate, a
need for speech is probably better served with locally available
software, which may provide better means for configuration and may
work in other software as well (e.g. a Word document).
Has anyone seen any research on the benefits for this type of service?
What is the main reason to implement it?
Regards,
Peter
From: John E Brandt
Date: Thu, Mar 24 2011 6:39AM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Patrick's response below mirror my sentiments exactly. The BA people were here in Maine a few years ago lobbying hard for the State Gov IT Dept to put it on all their websites. I was not impressed.
John E. Brandt
www.jebswebs.com
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
207-622-7937
Augusta, Maine, USA
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 6:53 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
Personally, I dislike BrowseAloud's business model. The plugin works potentially with every site, but as a client you need to pay them to get added to an explicit whitelist of URLs that unlocks its functionality.
They've been offering discounts/free accounts to government and education for a while, to drum up apparent adoption.
(oh, and the fact that, back in the days, there were incidents of obvious astroturfing campaigns like
http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=22009 doesn't fill me with confidence either).
Users that need speech are far better served with having something running on their machine that works on all sites, not just on select ones that paid to get BA to run there.
IMHO, of course,
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
From: Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E]
Date: Thu, Mar 24 2011 12:30PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
BrowseAloud and ReadSpeaker are both aimed at audiences other than those with vision loss, such as persons with dyslexia and reading disabilities, second language learners, etc. They're also useful for people who may not be able to afford screen readers (both were developed before NVDA).
* BrowseAloud http://www.browsealoud.com/. Contact Paul Quinn @ = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
* ReadSpeaker http://www.readspeaker.com/. Contact Stefanie Cuschnir @ = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Neither are meant to substitute for screen readers and both have their pros and cons, no doubt. I believe that both can now handle PDF files as well as html, but will only read PDF files that came from BrowseAloud or ReadSpeaker-enabled sites.
I haven't tested it out too much yet but the NIH's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke page is in the process of implementing ReadSpeaker. One nice feature is that pronunciation can be customized, which is pretty critical in technical information. Not sure if you'll be able to access the following link, if it's an internal staging site: http://draftdoc.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/agnosia/agnosia.htm. If you'd like to contact someone at the Library of Congress about its use of BrowseAloud, let me know and I'll put you in touch.
Is it safe to say that there's no one solution or approach to accessibility? this model, site-enabled speech applications, allows organizations to proactively provide one more tool to make their sites accessible. No one would suggest, that it excuses the business or organization from ensuring that their site is also compatible with a user's assistive technology.
Gary M. Morin, Program Analyst
NIH Office of the Chief Information Officer
10401 Fernwood Rd, Room 3G-17
Bethesda, MD 20892, Mail Stop: 4833
(301) 402-3924 Voice, 451-9326 TTY/NTS
Videophone (240) 380-3063; (301) 402-4464 Fax
WHAT IF THE FIRST QUESTION WE ASKED WAS, "WHAT IS SO UNIQUE ABOUT THIS SITUATION THAT IT JUSTIFIES EXCLUSION? INSTEAD OF, "HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE?"
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen L Noble [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:30 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
There are a variety of reasons why a service like BrowseAloud is used.
The primary use cases would be for portions of the general public like
the senior population with sight which is becoming limited, non-native
speakers, and members of the general public who have learning and mild
cognitive disabilities but are not being served by any type of
rehabilitation agency and so do not have access to funding for assistive
technology, or may not consider themselves "disabled." It is the same
rationale in many ways for some of the accessibility tools built into
modern operating systems, like the "ease of access" settings in Windows.
None of this is meant to replace the role for assistive technology, nor
the need for accessibility in websites.
------------------------------------
-- Steve Noble
Chair, National Technology Task Force
Learning Disabilities Association of America
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
502-969-3088
--------------
Disclaimer: The opinions and comments made in email are those of the
author, and do not necessarily represent the official position of any
organization unless explicitly stated.
>>> Peter Krantz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 3/24/2011 7:04 AM >>>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:53, Patrick H. Lauke
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Users that need speech are far better served with having something
> running on their machine that works on all sites, not just on select
> ones that paid to get BA to run there.
I can imagine several use cases where on-site speech could be
beneficial (using someone elses terminal etc.) but as you indicate, a
need for speech is probably better served with locally available
software, which may provide better means for configuration and may
work in other software as well (e.g. a Word document).
Has anyone seen any research on the benefits for this type of service?
What is the main reason to implement it?
Regards,
Peter
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Thu, Mar 24 2011 12:36PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Gary
Well said, as long as implementing one type accessibility solution on
a page does not distract from good basic webpage design that follows
accepted standards and accessibility principals ensuring accessibility
for all, it can only be a good thing.
On 3/24/11, Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E] < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> BrowseAloud and ReadSpeaker are both aimed at audiences other than those
> with vision loss, such as persons with dyslexia and reading disabilities,
> second language learners, etc. They're also useful for people who may not
> be able to afford screen readers (both were developed before NVDA).
>
> * BrowseAloud http://www.browsealoud.com/. Contact Paul Quinn @
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> * ReadSpeaker http://www.readspeaker.com/. Contact Stefanie Cuschnir @
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Neither are meant to substitute for screen readers and both have their pros
> and cons, no doubt. I believe that both can now handle PDF files as well as
> html, but will only read PDF files that came from BrowseAloud or
> ReadSpeaker-enabled sites.
>
> I haven't tested it out too much yet but the NIH's National Institute of
> Neurological Disorders and Stroke page is in the process of implementing
> ReadSpeaker. One nice feature is that pronunciation can be customized,
> which is pretty critical in technical information. Not sure if you'll be
> able to access the following link, if it's an internal staging site:
> http://draftdoc.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/agnosia/agnosia.htm. If you'd like
> to contact someone at the Library of Congress about its use of BrowseAloud,
> let me know and I'll put you in touch.
>
> Is it safe to say that there's no one solution or approach to accessibility?
> this model, site-enabled speech applications, allows organizations to
> proactively provide one more tool to make their sites accessible. No one
> would suggest, that it excuses the business or organization from ensuring
> that their site is also compatible with a user's assistive technology.
>
>
> Gary M. Morin, Program Analyst
> NIH Office of the Chief Information Officer
> 10401 Fernwood Rd, Room 3G-17
> Bethesda, MD 20892, Mail Stop: 4833
>
> (301) 402-3924 Voice, 451-9326 TTY/NTS
> Videophone (240) 380-3063; (301) 402-4464 Fax
>
> WHAT IF THE FIRST QUESTION WE ASKED WAS, "WHAT IS SO UNIQUE ABOUT THIS
> SITUATION THAT IT JUSTIFIES EXCLUSION? INSTEAD OF, "HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO
> MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE?"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen L Noble [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:30 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
>
> There are a variety of reasons why a service like BrowseAloud is used.
> The primary use cases would be for portions of the general public like
> the senior population with sight which is becoming limited, non-native
> speakers, and members of the general public who have learning and mild
> cognitive disabilities but are not being served by any type of
> rehabilitation agency and so do not have access to funding for assistive
> technology, or may not consider themselves "disabled." It is the same
> rationale in many ways for some of the accessibility tools built into
> modern operating systems, like the "ease of access" settings in Windows.
> None of this is meant to replace the role for assistive technology, nor
> the need for accessibility in websites.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> -- Steve Noble
> Chair, National Technology Task Force
> Learning Disabilities Association of America
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> 502-969-3088
>
> --------------
> Disclaimer: The opinions and comments made in email are those of the
> author, and do not necessarily represent the official position of any
> organization unless explicitly stated.
>
>
>>>> Peter Krantz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 3/24/2011 7:04 AM >>>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:53, Patrick H. Lauke
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Users that need speech are far better served with having something
>> running on their machine that works on all sites, not just on select
>> ones that paid to get BA to run there.
>
> I can imagine several use cases where on-site speech could be
> beneficial (using someone elses terminal etc.) but as you indicate, a
> need for speech is probably better served with locally available
> software, which may provide better means for configuration and may
> work in other software as well (e.g. a Word document).
>
> Has anyone seen any research on the benefits for this type of service?
> What is the main reason to implement it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
From: Robyn Hunt
Date: Thu, Mar 24 2011 12:42PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
<html>
<body>
Hi,<br>
BrowseAloud has been designed for the many people with dyslexia and
related conditions, who are often forgotten when accessibility is
considered.<br>
While it is installed on individual sites it makes a change for
individual disabled people not to have to bear a lot of the cost of
accessibility by having to provide their own assistive technology, so in
a way it fits with the 'social model' of disability by putting the whole
responsibility on the site owner to provide access. <br>
It is not suitable, and is not meant to be suitable for blind
users.<br>
Cheers<br>
Robyn<br><br>
<font size=2>Read my blog at
<a href="http://www.lowvisionary.com/" eudora="autourl">
www.lowvisionary.com<;/a> <br>
</font><font size=2 color="#0000FF">AccEase,</font><font size=2>
</font><font size=2 color="#008000"><i>All the information for all the
people all the time<br>
</i></font><font size=2>
<a href="http://www.accease.com/" eudora="autourl">www.accease.com<br>
</a>Twitter @AccEase<br>
i<i> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <br>
Ph. 64 4 939 0445<br>
Mobile 027 449 3019<br>
</i></font>>> <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">>> > On 3/23/11,
LSnider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:<br>
>> > > Hi All,<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Someone just sent this to me...The Library of Congress
finally updated<br>
>> > their<br>
>> > > web site. They now have a speech enabled feature using
BrowseAloud.<br>
>> > > The<br>
>> > info<br>
>> > > is at the bottom of this page:<br>
>> > >
<a href="http://www.loc.gov/access/web.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.loc.gov/access/web.html<;/a><br>
>> ><br>
>> </blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=2><i><br>
</font></i></body>
</html>
From: LSnider
Date: Thu, Mar 24 2011 3:45PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Everyone,
Great discussion, thank you! I am still reading through all your responses.
Gary-yes, I would like to talk to someone at the Library of Congress if you
could do that...I will email you offlist with my regular email.
Oh and Gary mentioned ReadSpeaker. Yesterday while researching, I found this
interesting comparison of the two:
http://www.funkanu.se/PageFiles/5826/browsealoud-readspeaker.pdf
It seems to me that this is a tool that can functionality to a web site that
has already been made accessible (for everyone)...although I still think
NVDA is the way to go.
Cheers
Lisa
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E] <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> BrowseAloud and ReadSpeaker are both aimed at audiences other than those
> with vision loss, such as persons with dyslexia and reading disabilities,
> second language learners, etc. They're also useful for people who may not
> be able to afford screen readers (both were developed before NVDA).
>
> * BrowseAloud http://www.browsealoud.com/. Contact Paul Quinn @
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> * ReadSpeaker http://www.readspeaker.com/. Contact Stefanie Cuschnir
> @ = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Neither are meant to substitute for screen readers and both have their pros
> and cons, no doubt. I believe that both can now handle PDF files as well as
> html, but will only read PDF files that came from BrowseAloud or
> ReadSpeaker-enabled sites.
>
> I haven't tested it out too much yet but the NIH's National Institute of
> Neurological Disorders and Stroke page is in the process of implementing
> ReadSpeaker. One nice feature is that pronunciation can be customized,
> which is pretty critical in technical information. Not sure if you'll be
> able to access the following link, if it's an internal staging site:
> http://draftdoc.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/agnosia/agnosia.htm. If you'd
> like to contact someone at the Library of Congress about its use of
> BrowseAloud, let me know and I'll put you in touch.
>
> Is it safe to say that there's no one solution or approach to
> accessibility? this model, site-enabled speech applications, allows
> organizations to proactively provide one more tool to make their sites
> accessible. No one would suggest, that it excuses the business or
> organization from ensuring that their site is also compatible with a user's
> assistive technology.
>
>
> Gary M. Morin, Program Analyst
> NIH Office of the Chief Information Officer
> 10401 Fernwood Rd, Room 3G-17
> Bethesda, MD 20892, Mail Stop: 4833
>
> (301) 402-3924 Voice, 451-9326 TTY/NTS
> Videophone (240) 380-3063; (301) 402-4464 Fax
>
> WHAT IF THE FIRST QUESTION WE ASKED WAS, "WHAT IS SO UNIQUE ABOUT THIS
> SITUATION THAT IT JUSTIFIES EXCLUSION? INSTEAD OF, "HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO
> MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE?"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen L Noble [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:30 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
>
> There are a variety of reasons why a service like BrowseAloud is used.
> The primary use cases would be for portions of the general public like
> the senior population with sight which is becoming limited, non-native
> speakers, and members of the general public who have learning and mild
> cognitive disabilities but are not being served by any type of
> rehabilitation agency and so do not have access to funding for assistive
> technology, or may not consider themselves "disabled." It is the same
> rationale in many ways for some of the accessibility tools built into
> modern operating systems, like the "ease of access" settings in Windows.
> None of this is meant to replace the role for assistive technology, nor
> the need for accessibility in websites.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> -- Steve Noble
> Chair, National Technology Task Force
> Learning Disabilities Association of America
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> 502-969-3088
>
> --------------
> Disclaimer: The opinions and comments made in email are those of the
> author, and do not necessarily represent the official position of any
> organization unless explicitly stated.
>
>
> >>> Peter Krantz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 3/24/2011 7:04 AM >>>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:53, Patrick H. Lauke
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Users that need speech are far better served with having something
> > running on their machine that works on all sites, not just on select
> > ones that paid to get BA to run there.
>
> I can imagine several use cases where on-site speech could be
> beneficial (using someone elses terminal etc.) but as you indicate, a
> need for speech is probably better served with locally available
> software, which may provide better means for configuration and may
> work in other software as well (e.g. a Word document).
>
> Has anyone seen any research on the benefits for this type of service?
> What is the main reason to implement it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
From: Giovanni Duarte
Date: Thu, Mar 24 2011 6:39PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Lisa,
I have talked to both of these companies. ReadSpeaker has a better pricing
model and it is dedicated to provide speech, while BrowseAloud is more like
a "study tool".
I did a trial of both tools and one think BrowseAloud has is MathML support,
which ReadSpeaker doesn't at the moment.
Giovanni
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of LSnider
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:37 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
Hi Everyone,
Great discussion, thank you! I am still reading through all your responses.
Gary-yes, I would like to talk to someone at the Library of Congress if you
could do that...I will email you offlist with my regular email.
Oh and Gary mentioned ReadSpeaker. Yesterday while researching, I found this
interesting comparison of the two:
http://www.funkanu.se/PageFiles/5826/browsealoud-readspeaker.pdf
It seems to me that this is a tool that can functionality to a web site that
has already been made accessible (for everyone)...although I still think
NVDA is the way to go.
Cheers
Lisa
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E] <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> BrowseAloud and ReadSpeaker are both aimed at audiences other than
> those with vision loss, such as persons with dyslexia and reading
> disabilities, second language learners, etc. They're also useful for
> people who may not be able to afford screen readers (both were developed
before NVDA).
>
> * BrowseAloud http://www.browsealoud.com/. Contact Paul Quinn @
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> * ReadSpeaker http://www.readspeaker.com/. Contact Stefanie Cuschnir
> @
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
>
> Neither are meant to substitute for screen readers and both have their
> pros and cons, no doubt. I believe that both can now handle PDF files
> as well as html, but will only read PDF files that came from
> BrowseAloud or ReadSpeaker-enabled sites.
>
> I haven't tested it out too much yet but the NIH's National Institute
> of Neurological Disorders and Stroke page is in the process of
> implementing ReadSpeaker. One nice feature is that pronunciation can
> be customized, which is pretty critical in technical information. Not
> sure if you'll be able to access the following link, if it's an internal
staging site:
> http://draftdoc.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/agnosia/agnosia.htm. If you'd
> like to contact someone at the Library of Congress about its use of
> BrowseAloud, let me know and I'll put you in touch.
>
> Is it safe to say that there's no one solution or approach to
> accessibility? this model, site-enabled speech applications, allows
> organizations to proactively provide one more tool to make their sites
> accessible. No one would suggest, that it excuses the business or
> organization from ensuring that their site is also compatible with a
> user's assistive technology.
>
>
> Gary M. Morin, Program Analyst
> NIH Office of the Chief Information Officer
> 10401 Fernwood Rd, Room 3G-17
> Bethesda, MD 20892, Mail Stop: 4833
>
> (301) 402-3924 Voice, 451-9326 TTY/NTS Videophone (240) 380-3063;
> (301) 402-4464 Fax
>
> WHAT IF THE FIRST QUESTION WE ASKED WAS, "WHAT IS SO UNIQUE ABOUT THIS
> SITUATION THAT IT JUSTIFIES EXCLUSION? INSTEAD OF, "HOW MUCH DOES IT
> COST TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE?"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen L Noble [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:30 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
>
> There are a variety of reasons why a service like BrowseAloud is used.
> The primary use cases would be for portions of the general public like
> the senior population with sight which is becoming limited, non-native
> speakers, and members of the general public who have learning and mild
> cognitive disabilities but are not being served by any type of
> rehabilitation agency and so do not have access to funding for
> assistive technology, or may not consider themselves "disabled." It is
> the same rationale in many ways for some of the accessibility tools
> built into modern operating systems, like the "ease of access" settings in
Windows.
> None of this is meant to replace the role for assistive technology,
> nor the need for accessibility in websites.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> -- Steve Noble
> Chair, National Technology Task Force
> Learning Disabilities Association of America
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> 502-969-3088
>
> --------------
> Disclaimer: The opinions and comments made in email are those of the
> author, and do not necessarily represent the official position of any
> organization unless explicitly stated.
>
>
> >>> Peter Krantz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 3/24/2011 7:04 AM >>>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:53, Patrick H. Lauke
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Users that need speech are far better served with having something
> > running on their machine that works on all sites, not just on select
> > ones that paid to get BA to run there.
>
> I can imagine several use cases where on-site speech could be
> beneficial (using someone elses terminal etc.) but as you indicate, a
> need for speech is probably better served with locally available
> software, which may provide better means for configuration and may
> work in other software as well (e.g. a Word document).
>
> Has anyone seen any research on the benefits for this type of service?
> What is the main reason to implement it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
From: Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E]
Date: Fri, Mar 25 2011 8:54AM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks for that article reference, Lisa. Looks really good! I did notice, though, that "This white paper was commissioned by Texthelp Systems." Not to imply anything, but in the name of disclosure, isn't Texthelp the company that owns BrowseAloud? One question I couldn't answer in reading the article (maybe I just scanned it too quickly) was which versions of each application was used in the comparison, since there of course may have been upgrades since the study was conducted.
Thanks,
Gary M.
WHAT IF THE FIRST QUESTION WE ASKED WAS, "WHAT IS SO UNIQUE ABOUT THIS SITUATION THAT IT JUSTIFIES EXCLUSION? INSTEAD OF, "HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE?"
-----Original Message-----
From: LSnider [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:37 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
Hi Everyone,
Great discussion, thank you! I am still reading through all your responses.
Gary-yes, I would like to talk to someone at the Library of Congress if you
could do that...I will email you offlist with my regular email.
Oh and Gary mentioned ReadSpeaker. Yesterday while researching, I found this
interesting comparison of the two:
http://www.funkanu.se/PageFiles/5826/browsealoud-readspeaker.pdf
It seems to me that this is a tool that can functionality to a web site that
has already been made accessible (for everyone)...although I still think
NVDA is the way to go.
Cheers
Lisa
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E] <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> BrowseAloud and ReadSpeaker are both aimed at audiences other than those
> with vision loss, such as persons with dyslexia and reading disabilities,
> second language learners, etc. They're also useful for people who may not
> be able to afford screen readers (both were developed before NVDA).
>
> * BrowseAloud http://www.browsealoud.com/. Contact Paul Quinn @
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> * ReadSpeaker http://www.readspeaker.com/. Contact Stefanie Cuschnir
> @ = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Neither are meant to substitute for screen readers and both have their pros
> and cons, no doubt. I believe that both can now handle PDF files as well as
> html, but will only read PDF files that came from BrowseAloud or
> ReadSpeaker-enabled sites.
>
> I haven't tested it out too much yet but the NIH's National Institute of
> Neurological Disorders and Stroke page is in the process of implementing
> ReadSpeaker. One nice feature is that pronunciation can be customized,
> which is pretty critical in technical information. Not sure if you'll be
> able to access the following link, if it's an internal staging site:
> http://draftdoc.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/agnosia/agnosia.htm. If you'd
> like to contact someone at the Library of Congress about its use of
> BrowseAloud, let me know and I'll put you in touch.
>
> Is it safe to say that there's no one solution or approach to
> accessibility? this model, site-enabled speech applications, allows
> organizations to proactively provide one more tool to make their sites
> accessible. No one would suggest, that it excuses the business or
> organization from ensuring that their site is also compatible with a user's
> assistive technology.
>
>
> Gary M. Morin, Program Analyst
> NIH Office of the Chief Information Officer
> 10401 Fernwood Rd, Room 3G-17
> Bethesda, MD 20892, Mail Stop: 4833
>
> (301) 402-3924 Voice, 451-9326 TTY/NTS
> Videophone (240) 380-3063; (301) 402-4464 Fax
>
> WHAT IF THE FIRST QUESTION WE ASKED WAS, "WHAT IS SO UNIQUE ABOUT THIS
> SITUATION THAT IT JUSTIFIES EXCLUSION? INSTEAD OF, "HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO
> MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE?"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen L Noble [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:30 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] BrowseAloud
>
> There are a variety of reasons why a service like BrowseAloud is used.
> The primary use cases would be for portions of the general public like
> the senior population with sight which is becoming limited, non-native
> speakers, and members of the general public who have learning and mild
> cognitive disabilities but are not being served by any type of
> rehabilitation agency and so do not have access to funding for assistive
> technology, or may not consider themselves "disabled." It is the same
> rationale in many ways for some of the accessibility tools built into
> modern operating systems, like the "ease of access" settings in Windows.
> None of this is meant to replace the role for assistive technology, nor
> the need for accessibility in websites.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> -- Steve Noble
> Chair, National Technology Task Force
> Learning Disabilities Association of America
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> 502-969-3088
>
> --------------
> Disclaimer: The opinions and comments made in email are those of the
> author, and do not necessarily represent the official position of any
> organization unless explicitly stated.
>
>
> >>> Peter Krantz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 3/24/2011 7:04 AM >>>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:53, Patrick H. Lauke
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Users that need speech are far better served with having something
> > running on their machine that works on all sites, not just on select
> > ones that paid to get BA to run there.
>
> I can imagine several use cases where on-site speech could be
> beneficial (using someone elses terminal etc.) but as you indicate, a
> need for speech is probably better served with locally available
> software, which may provide better means for configuration and may
> work in other software as well (e.g. a Word document).
>
> Has anyone seen any research on the benefits for this type of service?
> What is the main reason to implement it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Mar 25 2011 2:12PM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
On 25/03/2011 14:55, Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E] wrote:
> Thanks for that article reference, Lisa. Looks really good! I did notice, though, that "This white paper was commissioned by Texthelp Systems." Not to imply anything, but in the name of disclosure, isn't Texthelp the company that owns BrowseAloud?
Yes.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
From: LSnider
Date: Sat, Apr 02 2011 11:09AM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Giovanni,
Thanks so much, this was very useful information.
Cheers
Lisa
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Giovanni Duarte < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> Lisa,
> I have talked to both of these companies. ReadSpeaker has a better pricing
> model and it is dedicated to provide speech, while BrowseAloud is more like
> a "study tool".
> I did a trial of both tools and one think BrowseAloud has is MathML
> support,
> which ReadSpeaker doesn't at the moment.
>
> Giovanni
>
From: LSnider
Date: Sat, Apr 02 2011 11:15AM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Robyn,
Thanks for this information. I agree that people with dyslexia, ADD, ADHD,
etc. are forgotten. I am trying to change that :)
See my view today is that free programs like NVDA are so easy to get and use
that why would one want a pay model? Of course the user doesn't pay, but it
does cost. Although I see your point about getting the site owners to take
that responsibility.
Cheers
Lisa
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Robyn Hunt < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi,
> BrowseAloud has been designed for the many people with dyslexia and related
> conditions, who are often forgotten when accessibility is considered.
> While it is installed on individual sites it makes a change for individual
> disabled people not to have to bear a lot of the cost of accessibility by
> having to provide their own assistive technology, so in a way it fits with
> the 'social model' of disability by putting the whole responsibility on the
> site owner to provide access.
> It is not suitable, and is not meant to be suitable for blind users.
> Cheers
> Robyn
>
>
From: LSnider
Date: Sat, Apr 02 2011 11:21AM
Subject: Re: BrowseAloud
← Previous message | No next message
Hi Gary and Patrick,
Sorry for the delay, school ate my brain for a week! Good catch on that
article! They should state that clearly up front, otherwise it is a bit
suspect...
Cheers
Lisa
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E] <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Thanks for that article reference, Lisa. Looks really good! I did
> notice, though, that “This white paper was commissioned by Texthelp
> Systems.” Not to imply anything, but in the name of disclosure, isn’t
> Texthelp the company that owns BrowseAloud? One question I couldn’t
> answer in reading the article (maybe I just scanned it too quickly) was
> which versions of each application was used in the comparison, since there
> of course may have been upgrades since the study was conducted.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary M.
>
>