E-mail List Archives
Thread: Something's amiss with the latest survey
Number of posts in this thread: 26 (In chronological order)
From: Karl Groves
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 12:59PM
Subject: Something's amiss with the latest survey
No previous message | Next message →
Apparently it is "Karl causes fights on social media day" today. On
Facebook it was the relative sanity of certain political candidates.
On Twitter it is the latest Screen Reader Survey.
http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey6/
First, let me be clear: I've been a member of this list and a fan of
WebAIM, its people, and its work since 2003. Among the most valuable
resources they provide are their surveys on Screen Reader users and
Low Vision users. I reference this work in a number of places - one
of which being the training content that we deliver at TPG. I believe
in WebAIM not only as an organization but as people.
Something is up with the latest screen reader survey. From the survey
"ZoomText (1.3% to 22.2%) and Window-Eyes (6.7% to 20.7%) both saw
very significant increases in usage since January 2014."
In 1 3/4 years, ZoomText's market share rose just under 21% and
WindowEyes rose 14%? This *does not* pass a sniff test. Market
penetration for a *new* consumer product is often under 10%. These are
products that have been around a long time, their market share has
shown a downward trend in previous surveys, and there have been no
"disruptive" new features added to either product in the last 18
months, either. Jared posted his thoughts on the WebAIM blog:
http://webaim.org/blog/resugence-of-zoomtext-and-window-eyes/
I'm not inclined to draw any hasty conclusions as to what caused these
results other than to say that I highly doubt there's a
correspondingly high rate of growth for both of these products. These
numbers would suggest that the market itself has expanded. Put
another way, even if we consider the downward trend of JAWS in prior
years, I don't think that would account for the growth numbers of
these products (when prior years indicated that the erosion was going
to NVDA and VoiceOver).
This has a much more negative effect than many people realized. I
point customers to this information. I can't, in good conscience, do
that anymore. I can't tell customers "You should support the broadest
number of PWDs by at least a) following standards and b) supporting
this set of assistive technologies" Because now this list includes an
illegitimately inflated count of two products.
--
Karl Groves
www.karlgroves.com
@karlgroves
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
Phone: +1 410.541.6829
Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
www.tenon.io
From: Jennison Mark Asuncion
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 1:17PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
Keep in mind that this survey (which I have and will continue to
reference in the absence of anything else) is based on a convenience
sample which comes with it all sorts of caveats.
That said, my speculation on the higher W-E numbers is possibly that
it is now free, as I understand it with Windows 10. On ZT, who knows,
perhaps info about completing the survey was much more prmoted to
visually impaired folks this year?
Jennison
On 8/28/15, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Apparently it is "Karl causes fights on social media day" today. On
> Facebook it was the relative sanity of certain political candidates.
> On Twitter it is the latest Screen Reader Survey.
> http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey6/
>
> First, let me be clear: I've been a member of this list and a fan of
> WebAIM, its people, and its work since 2003. Among the most valuable
> resources they provide are their surveys on Screen Reader users and
> Low Vision users. I reference this work in a number of places - one
> of which being the training content that we deliver at TPG. I believe
> in WebAIM not only as an organization but as people.
>
> Something is up with the latest screen reader survey. From the survey
> "ZoomText (1.3% to 22.2%) and Window-Eyes (6.7% to 20.7%) both saw
> very significant increases in usage since January 2014."
>
> In 1 3/4 years, ZoomText's market share rose just under 21% and
> WindowEyes rose 14%? This *does not* pass a sniff test. Market
> penetration for a *new* consumer product is often under 10%. These are
> products that have been around a long time, their market share has
> shown a downward trend in previous surveys, and there have been no
> "disruptive" new features added to either product in the last 18
> months, either. Jared posted his thoughts on the WebAIM blog:
> http://webaim.org/blog/resugence-of-zoomtext-and-window-eyes/
>
> I'm not inclined to draw any hasty conclusions as to what caused these
> results other than to say that I highly doubt there's a
> correspondingly high rate of growth for both of these products. These
> numbers would suggest that the market itself has expanded. Put
> another way, even if we consider the downward trend of JAWS in prior
> years, I don't think that would account for the growth numbers of
> these products (when prior years indicated that the erosion was going
> to NVDA and VoiceOver).
>
> This has a much more negative effect than many people realized. I
> point customers to this information. I can't, in good conscience, do
> that anymore. I can't tell customers "You should support the broadest
> number of PWDs by at least a) following standards and b) supporting
> this set of assistive technologies" Because now this list includes an
> illegitimately inflated count of two products.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Karl Groves
> www.karlgroves.com
> @karlgroves
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
> Phone: +1 410.541.6829
>
> Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
>
> www.tenon.io
> > > > >
--
Jennison Mark Asuncion
LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/jennison
Follow me on Twitter www.twitter.com/jennison
Organizer, Bay Area Accessibility and Inclusive Design www.meetup.com/a11ybay
Organizer, Accessibility Camp Bay Area www.accessibilitycampbay.org
Co-Founder, Global Accessibility Awareness Day
www.globalaccessibilityawarenessday.org
From: Moore,Michael (HHSC)
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 1:18PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
First let me be clear. I have been a fan of WebAIM, Karl Groves, TPG and this list for a while myself. But I have to respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague regarding the value of the results as device to demonstrate the diversity of the screen reader user community.
One alternative explanation for the increase in the number of users reporting ZoomText as a primary screen reader may simply be the wider dissemination of the survey. Through my work I have consistently encountered what seemed to be a larger number of people using ZoomText as a screen reader than was indicated by previous surveys. Given that my data was anecdotal rather than scientific I felt that it could simply be a product of my unique work environment that brought me in contact with a greater number of visually impaired users with lower levels of technical skills than the average accessibility specialist.
As for the growth of Window Eyes - the Microsoft program is bound to have an impact. Particularly when you consider the number of enterprise customers who can now fulfill reasonable accommodation requests with a commercial, Microsoft endorsed (implicit), screen reading product.
Mike Moore
Accessibility Coordinator
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Civil Rights Office
From: Lucy Greco
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 1:27PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
i New we would face this day when MS gave the free ticket to we but not
that bad so soon. I am having a hard enough time still having to support
jaws when NVDA does so much better on web apps then any other screen
reader if your telling me i need to start testing with we i can't take it
is it time for me to move to that cave in the woods MS disrupted the
market when they moved in to we. now the screen reader that supports the
least web basics is gaining momentum. get me out of this industry before
i have to use more screen readers that suck Lucy
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Moore,Michael (HHSC) <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> First let me be clear. I have been a fan of WebAIM, Karl Groves, TPG and
> this list for a while myself. But I have to respectfully disagree with my
> esteemed colleague regarding the value of the results as device to
> demonstrate the diversity of the screen reader user community.
>
> One alternative explanation for the increase in the number of users
> reporting ZoomText as a primary screen reader may simply be the wider
> dissemination of the survey. Through my work I have consistently
> encountered what seemed to be a larger number of people using ZoomText as a
> screen reader than was indicated by previous surveys. Given that my data
> was anecdotal rather than scientific I felt that it could simply be a
> product of my unique work environment that brought me in contact with a
> greater number of visually impaired users with lower levels of technical
> skills than the average accessibility specialist.
>
> As for the growth of Window Eyes - the Microsoft program is bound to have
> an impact. Particularly when you consider the number of enterprise
> customers who can now fulfill reasonable accommodation requests with a
> commercial, Microsoft endorsed (implicit), screen reading product.
>
> Mike Moore
> Accessibility Coordinator
> Texas Health and Human Services Commission
> Civil Rights Office
>
>
From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 1:29PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
> On ZT, who knows, perhaps info about completing the survey was much more prmoted to visually impaired folks this year?
Yes, AI Squared emailed all of their ZoomText and Window-Eyes users and asked them to take the survey. I did not see such an email from Freedom Scientific, NVDA, or Apple.
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703-637-8957 (o)
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter
From: Moore,Michael (HHSC)
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 1:32PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
I think that what is really indicated by the survey is a need for stronger support of web standards by everyone - the web is simply too diverse to test every possible permutation and actually bring anything to market.
Mike Moore
From: J. B-Vincent
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 1:36PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
I would also respectfully point out that ZoomText is the only option that is available for both Windows and Mac on the provided list in the survey, and the question did not distinguish between the two versions. It's possible that Mac users may have increased adoption of ZT as a VoiceOver alternative since audio capabilities were introduced in the spring of 2014.
--Jane Vincent, University of Michigan
From: "Moore,Michael (HHSC)" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Something's amiss with the latest survey
First let me be clear. I have been a fan of WebAIM, Karl Groves, TPG and this list for a while myself. But I have to respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague regarding the value of the results as device to demonstrate the diversity of the screen reader user community.
One alternative explanation for the increase in the number of users reporting ZoomText as a primary screen reader may simply be the wider dissemination of the survey. Through my work I have consistently encountered what seemed to be a larger number of people using ZoomText as a screen reader than was indicated by previous surveys. Given that my data was anecdotal rather than scientific I felt that it could simply be a product of my unique work environment that brought me in contact with a greater number of visually impaired users with lower levels of technical skills than the average accessibility specialist.
As for the growth of Window Eyes - the Microsoft program is bound to have an impact. Particularly when you consider the number of enterprise customers who can now fulfill reasonable accommodation requests with a commercial, Microsoft endorsed (implicit), screen reading product.
Mike Moore
Accessibility Coordinator
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Civil Rights Office
From: Jordan Wilson
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 1:43PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
I would suggest using the "Commonly Used" statistic a little lower down on
the page instead of the "Primacy Screen Reader" statistic.
That statistic is a bit more in line w/ what we¹ve seen in the past, and
it better reflects the number of users who use each platform overall. Its
a better complete measurement of usage.
The Primary Screen Reader stat undervalues the platforms that are used
secondarily.
That said, Jonathan¹s mention of the e-mail from the vendor is probably a
large factor. Stuffing the ballot box if you may.
On 8/28/15, 3:36 PM, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of WebAIM Discussion List"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>I would also respectfully point out that ZoomText is the only option that
>is available for both Windows and Mac on the provided list in the survey,
>and the question did not distinguish between the two versions. It's
>possible that Mac users may have increased adoption of ZT as a VoiceOver
>alternative since audio capabilities were introduced in the spring of
>2014.
>
>--Jane Vincent, University of Michigan
>
> From: "Moore,Michael (HHSC)" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 3:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Something's amiss with the latest survey
>
>First let me be clear. I have been a fan of WebAIM, Karl Groves, TPG and
>this list for a while myself. But I have to respectfully disagree with my
>esteemed colleague regarding the value of the results as device to
>demonstrate the diversity of the screen reader user community.
>
>One alternative explanation for the increase in the number of users
>reporting ZoomText as a primary screen reader may simply be the wider
>dissemination of the survey. Through my work I have consistently
>encountered what seemed to be a larger number of people using ZoomText as
>a screen reader than was indicated by previous surveys. Given that my
>data was anecdotal rather than scientific I felt that it could simply be
>a product of my unique work environment that brought me in contact with a
>greater number of visually impaired users with lower levels of technical
>skills than the average accessibility specialist.
>
>As for the growth of Window Eyes - the Microsoft program is bound to have
>an impact. Particularly when you consider the number of enterprise
>customers who can now fulfill reasonable accommodation requests with a
>commercial, Microsoft endorsed (implicit), screen reading product.
>
>Mike Moore
>Accessibility Coordinator
>Texas Health and Human Services Commission
>Civil Rights Office
>
>
From: Lucy Greco
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 1:44PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
all vary good points. also i wonder if there could be some additional
correlation to the numbers in south America to jaws use since fs and i
think it was Brazil have a all free license there as well note that magic
does not show on the list at all
From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 1:52PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
> as well note that magic does not show on the list at all
I agree, it is unfortunate that MAGic with speech was not listed.
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703-637-8957 (o)
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter
From: Karl Groves
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 1:54PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
Jared mentioned that multiple vendors sent out information on the
survey. However, AISquared sent out 3. July 8, 15 & 21
I'm not sure I'd say it was purposeful ballot stuffing, but the net
effect appears the same. :-(
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Jordan Wilson
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I would suggest using the "Commonly Used" statistic a little lower down on
> the page instead of the "Primacy Screen Reader" statistic.
>
> That statistic is a bit more in line w/ what we¹ve seen in the past, and
> it better reflects the number of users who use each platform overall. Its
> a better complete measurement of usage.
>
> The Primary Screen Reader stat undervalues the platforms that are used
> secondarily.
>
> That said, Jonathan¹s mention of the e-mail from the vendor is probably a
> large factor. Stuffing the ballot box if you may.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/28/15, 3:36 PM, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of WebAIM Discussion List"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>>I would also respectfully point out that ZoomText is the only option that
>>is available for both Windows and Mac on the provided list in the survey,
>>and the question did not distinguish between the two versions. It's
>>possible that Mac users may have increased adoption of ZT as a VoiceOver
>>alternative since audio capabilities were introduced in the spring of
>>2014.
>>
>>--Jane Vincent, University of Michigan
>>
>> From: "Moore,Michael (HHSC)" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 3:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Something's amiss with the latest survey
>>
>>First let me be clear. I have been a fan of WebAIM, Karl Groves, TPG and
>>this list for a while myself. But I have to respectfully disagree with my
>>esteemed colleague regarding the value of the results as device to
>>demonstrate the diversity of the screen reader user community.
>>
>>One alternative explanation for the increase in the number of users
>>reporting ZoomText as a primary screen reader may simply be the wider
>>dissemination of the survey. Through my work I have consistently
>>encountered what seemed to be a larger number of people using ZoomText as
>>a screen reader than was indicated by previous surveys. Given that my
>>data was anecdotal rather than scientific I felt that it could simply be
>>a product of my unique work environment that brought me in contact with a
>>greater number of visually impaired users with lower levels of technical
>>skills than the average accessibility specialist.
>>
>>As for the growth of Window Eyes - the Microsoft program is bound to have
>>an impact. Particularly when you consider the number of enterprise
>>customers who can now fulfill reasonable accommodation requests with a
>>commercial, Microsoft endorsed (implicit), screen reading product.
>>
>>Mike Moore
>>Accessibility Coordinator
>>Texas Health and Human Services Commission
>>Civil Rights Office
>>
>>
From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 2:26PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
Karl -
Thanks for starting the dialogue.
First and foremost, we never purport or suggest that the survey responses
are representative of market share. Or that they represent screen reader
users in general. The only thing we can definitively say is that they are
representative of survey respondents. The more respondents there are, the
safer it is to say that the responses *might* begin to be representative of
those other things.
The ZoomText numbers are certainly surprising. AI Squared has indicated to
us that based on their sales and usage data that they felt ZoomText users
were underrepresented on our previous surveys. They know how many licenses
they've sold - and believed that our survey numbers simply didn't jive with
theirs. Others in the broader AT field have suggested the same. AI has made
significant product improvements and have marketed their products well,
including the release of ZoomText for Mac and free Window-Eyes licenses for
Office users. I anticipated an increase, but not nearly this significant.
There are, I think, three primary factors that might explain the increase
in ZoomText use among respondents:
1. ZoomText users were disproportionately represented.
2. The survey reached a broader low vision audience than in previous years.
3. Our perceptions of screen reader usage (as reinforced by previous survey
data) are not accurate.
#1 - AI Squared marketed this survey heavily. But it was also pushed on
distribution lists for almost all of the other screen reader product
mailing lists (as it has for every previous survey we've conducted). Would
the data be more valuable if nobody ever marketed the survey and we had
very few responses? I don't think so.
Is it likely that AI Squared's push for survey respondents resulted in
inflated numbers? Of course. We fully acknowledge this. But I don't think
you can explain the notable increase based on this factor alone.
#2 - As Jennison suggested, the survey was completed by a broader
population and one that included more visually impaired (as opposed to
blind) screen reader users than ever before. Many ZoomText users primarily
use its magnification features and use the screen reader functionality to
supplement magnification. Some may not really consider themselves as
primary users of screen readers, and may not have even known of previous
surveys.
That more of these users completed the survey is wonderful. This means that
the responses are more (not at all fully) representative of screen reader
users in general.
#3 - This is the one that is most important for us to consider - that our
perception of which screen readers are most commonly used is inaccurate.
And that this misperception has been reinforced by previous survey data
that underrepresented ZoomText users. Without significant and rigorous
research, we'll never know. Until that occurs, I think the WebAIM survey
data is the best available.
In reality, the ZoomText jump was probably influenced by all these factors.
Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate you think the ZoomText numbers
might be, I think the overall considerations are the same:
1. ZoomText is a technology that we shouldn't ignore.
2. We need to better consider the low vision experience with screen readers
(primarily ZoomText).
3. There is increasing diversity among screen reader and browser usage
which introduces notable burden on authors to ensure compatibility with
them all - the true solution to which is only increased support for web
standards.
4. We need to be cautious in thinking our experiences and perceptions of
screen reader users are representative of all screen reader users.
The reason we started conducting these surveys was to correct and/or verify
our assumptions. Two things I've learned from our survey data are that they
should be treated with caution and that ignoring them altogether is a
usually a bad idea.
Jared Smith
WebAIM.org
From: David Wu
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 2:40PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
In past years Ai Squared did very little, if anything, to pass along the WebAIM survey. As a result, a very large segment of screen reader users were under-represented. In 2015, Ai Squared merely made our user base more aware of the survey. This is nothing more than what other screen reader user groups did in 2014, 2013, 2012, etc.
The higher percentage of ZoomText users from 2014 to 2015 doesn't mean that ZoomText suddenly saw a doubling of sales in the past year. What the data does explain, however, is that partially sighted screen reader users were not counted in the past year's surveys. The big jump in ZoomText share should not be surprising since ZoomText primarily benefits those users who need screen reading but can still see parts of their screen. Because the number of low vision users vastly outnumbers blind users by a ratio of 6 to 1, it is not surprising that when included in the survey in 2015, the market share results for ZoomText have shot up dramatically.
As for Window-Eyes, in January 2014, Microsoft announced that users of Microsoft Office 2010 or later would be able to download a free copy of Window-Eyes. While I am not at liberty to report the number of downloads, I can safely say that it is a monstrous number. Even if heavily discounted for tire kickers and those who downloaded but didn't use Window-Eyes, the numbers would still make a significant impact on overall market share.
Sincerely,
David Wu
CEO
Ai Squared
From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 3:02PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
Jordan Wilson wrote:
> I would suggest using the "Commonly Used" statistic a little lower down on
> the page instead of the "Primacy Screen Reader" statistic.
>
> That statistic is a bit more in line w/ what we've seen in the past, and
> it better reflects the number of users who use each platform overall. Its
> a better complete measurement of usage.
We report both sets of statistics because they represent different things.
I think focusing on Primary Screen Reader values is important. It
better represents what a screen reader user's initial experience is
most likely to be. If there are support issues, most screen reader
users can then, if they have one, fall back to one of the other screen
readers they commonly use. As noted in the article, Window-Eyes and
ZoomText users tend not to use other screen readers, thus making the
Primary number more relevant... at least to them.
Jared
From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Fri, Aug 28 2015 3:02PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
> What the data does explain, however, is that partially sighted screen reader users were not counted in the past year's surveys.
I would certainly agree with this fact. People with low vision may switch between using no magnification with larger text, magnification, and a screen reader within the same session. The needs of users with low vision are often unique and may be different from users who solely rely on a screen reader. Historically people with low vision may have not seen themselves as screen reader users even though they may use text-to-speech but not rely on the full functionality of a screen reader.
In my pointing out that AISquared emailed it users about the survey -- I certainly was not saying anything wrong or improper was done -- it's just a fact of what occurred and is a very reasonable thing for a screen reader vendor to do. Regarding other vendors -- I did not personally get emails from those vendors regarding the survey. Having the most broad sample to get the most accurate data is what we all want.
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703-637-8957 (o)
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter
From: Karl Groves
Date: Sat, Aug 29 2015 5:23AM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
I'm super glad I started this conversation. It has been really enlightening.
As Jared's mentioned, we should be cautious of data from self-selected samples.
If this now includes more accurate representation of low-vision screen
reader users than previous years, that's a good thing.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Jordan Wilson wrote:
>> I would suggest using the "Commonly Used" statistic a little lower down on
>> the page instead of the "Primacy Screen Reader" statistic.
>>
>> That statistic is a bit more in line w/ what we've seen in the past, and
>> it better reflects the number of users who use each platform overall. Its
>> a better complete measurement of usage.
>
> We report both sets of statistics because they represent different things.
>
> I think focusing on Primary Screen Reader values is important. It
> better represents what a screen reader user's initial experience is
> most likely to be. If there are support issues, most screen reader
> users can then, if they have one, fall back to one of the other screen
> readers they commonly use. As noted in the article, Window-Eyes and
> ZoomText users tend not to use other screen readers, thus making the
> Primary number more relevant... at least to them.
>
> Jared
> > > > --
Karl Groves
www.karlgroves.com
@karlgroves
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
Phone: +1 410.541.6829
Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
www.tenon.io
From: L Snider
Date: Mon, Aug 31 2015 10:33AM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
I read this discussion with interest.
First, I appreciate the survey being done, as it is one of the few surveys
that gives us this important information.
Second, I think that the results do look skewed, but here is where I see
the good part of that happening. For likely the first time, vendors are
starting to understand (in a major way) how important this survey is....now
maybe all the other vendors will promote the survey next year with great
gusto, in order to get users of their products represented. I think this
was a major turning point for the survey. As well, if we can highlight the
range of visual disabilities in a fuller sense than in previous years, then
it is a win-win-win for everyone. It is all good!
Cheers
Lisa
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I'm super glad I started this conversation. It has been really
> enlightening.
>
> As Jared's mentioned, we should be cautious of data from self-selected
> samples.
>
> If this now includes more accurate representation of low-vision screen
> reader users than previous years, that's a good thing.
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Jordan Wilson wrote:
> >> I would suggest using the "Commonly Used" statistic a little lower down
> on
> >> the page instead of the "Primacy Screen Reader" statistic.
> >>
> >> That statistic is a bit more in line w/ what we've seen in the past, and
> >> it better reflects the number of users who use each platform overall.
> Its
> >> a better complete measurement of usage.
> >
> > We report both sets of statistics because they represent different
> things.
> >
> > I think focusing on Primary Screen Reader values is important. It
> > better represents what a screen reader user's initial experience is
> > most likely to be. If there are support issues, most screen reader
> > users can then, if they have one, fall back to one of the other screen
> > readers they commonly use. As noted in the article, Window-Eyes and
> > ZoomText users tend not to use other screen readers, thus making the
> > Primary number more relevant... at least to them.
> >
> > Jared
> > > > > > > > >
>
>
> --
>
> Karl Groves
> www.karlgroves.com
> @karlgroves
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
> Phone: +1 410.541.6829
>
> Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
>
> www.tenon.io
> > > > >
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mon, Aug 31 2015 6:15PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
Jared,
I don't recall seeing the "disability type" question in the past, but do note that it is there in survey #6 and think that it would be very interesting to see a breakdown of top primary AT used by end-users who place themselves into the different categories.
I certainly agree with the sentiments of others that the survey is useful and I appreciate WebAIM taking this (and the resulting comments and critiques) on year after year, and also that we shouldn't read too much into the results (e.g. No one wants to hear "now we only test with JAWS and Zoom-Text!").
AWK
On 8/28/15, 17:02, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Jared Smith" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>Jordan Wilson wrote:
>> I would suggest using the "Commonly Used" statistic a little lower down on
>> the page instead of the "Primacy Screen Reader" statistic.
>>
>> That statistic is a bit more in line w/ what we've seen in the past, and
>> it better reflects the number of users who use each platform overall. Its
>> a better complete measurement of usage.
>
>We report both sets of statistics because they represent different things.
>
>I think focusing on Primary Screen Reader values is important. It
>better represents what a screen reader user's initial experience is
>most likely to be. If there are support issues, most screen reader
>users can then, if they have one, fall back to one of the other screen
>readers they commonly use. As noted in the article, Window-Eyes and
>ZoomText users tend not to use other screen readers, thus making the
>Primary number more relevant... at least to them.
>
>Jared
>>>>
From: Steve Sawczyn
Date: Mon, Aug 31 2015 6:34PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
I agree, this would be a very helpful breakdown. I get that ZoomText
has screen reader functionality, but have yet to meet a totally blind
person using it as their primary solution. In addition, there are both
Mac and PC versions of ZoomText, is there a way to determine what
percentage use which platform?
Steve
On 8/31/2015 7:15 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> Jared,
> I don't recall seeing the "disability type" question in the past, but do note that it is there in survey #6 and think that it would be very interesting to see a breakdown of top primary AT used by end-users who place themselves into the different categories.
>
> I certainly agree with the sentiments of others that the survey is useful and I appreciate WebAIM taking this (and the resulting comments and critiques) on year after year, and also that we shouldn't read too much into the results (e.g. No one wants to hear "now we only test with JAWS and Zoom-Text!").
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> On 8/28/15, 17:02, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Jared Smith" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Jordan Wilson wrote:
>>> I would suggest using the "Commonly Used" statistic a little lower down on
>>> the page instead of the "Primacy Screen Reader" statistic.
>>>
>>> That statistic is a bit more in line w/ what we've seen in the past, and
>>> it better reflects the number of users who use each platform overall. Its
>>> a better complete measurement of usage.
>>
>> We report both sets of statistics because they represent different things.
>>
>> I think focusing on Primary Screen Reader values is important. It
>> better represents what a screen reader user's initial experience is
>> most likely to be. If there are support issues, most screen reader
>> users can then, if they have one, fall back to one of the other screen
>> readers they commonly use. As noted in the article, Window-Eyes and
>> ZoomText users tend not to use other screen readers, thus making the
>> Primary number more relevant... at least to them.
>>
>> Jared
>> >> >> >> > > > > >
From: Andrews, David B (DEED)
Date: Tue, Sep 01 2015 7:51AM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
First let me say I value Webaim and the annual survey. They are valuable resources to the community. In terms of percentages of using this or that, we do need to be careful though.
Clearly, in the past, Zoomtext was under-represented. This year's numbers come closer to fixing that. However, other aberrations also exist. While I know that Magic does not have the market share of Zoomtext, it is larger than zero. I work for a State Rehab agency and I know what we buy. Likewise, while anecdotal, my observation is that use of NVDA is increasing, not decreasing. I know this is true for myself. Also, lots of people have downloaded Window-Eyes, but my observation is that the number of daily users has not substantially increased. This comes from my work in a rehab agency, and my running over 250 listserv's for the NFB, where thousands of blind people post on lots of topics.
Finally, I may be old school in my views, but I separate screen readers from "screen enlargers," or "magnification software." Clearly the line has blurred somewhat, with Zoomtext and Magic offering more screen-reader-like features, but I do not know of any totally blind person using either one as a screen reader alone.
So, lots of good data, and it helps us see trends, but people shouldn't take the numbers literally.
Dave
From: Bishop, Jeff - (jeffbis)
Date: Tue, Sep 01 2015 8:26AM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello Everyone,
I know that Window-Eyes has had a substantial reworking of its support for web standards in their 9.X product cycle. Do we know if any independent review has been completed to see where Window-Eyes ranks in the support for web standards now? If so, can someone pass along a link to the list?
Jeff
From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Sep 01 2015 2:50PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> I think that it would be very interesting to see a
> breakdown of top primary AT used by end-users
> who place themselves into the different categories.
I've added some details on this to the survey.
For respondents that report having low vision, 53.5% use ZoomText,
16.5% use JAWS, 12.2% use Window-Eyes, 8.7% use NVDA, and 4.6% use
VoiceOver. I don't think the ZoomText numbers here are very
surprising. 3.5% report using Other, which is where MAGic would be
accounted for.
For respondents that report blindness, 38.9% use JAWS, 26.5% use
Window-Eyes, 16.9% use NVDA, 8.7% use VoiceOver, and 4.6% use
ZoomText.
ZoomText was also more commonly used by users with auditory, motor,
and cognitive disabilities than by users with blindness.
There's no doubt that an increased number of respondents with low
vision and other disabilities notably changed the screen reader
percentages. However, despite someone's claim that the low vision
ZoomText users "ruined" the survey, when you compare responses to the
other survey questions from those who report blindness vs. those who
report low vision, or JAWS users vs. ZoomText users, there really are
few notable differences. The most notable difference is in mobile
screen reader usage - 80.2% of blind respondents use a mobile screen
reader compared to only 52.8% of low vision users. This likely
accounts for much of the overall decline in mobile screen reader
usage.
Thanks for prompting me to look further into these aspects of the survey data.
Jared
From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Sep 01 2015 3:05PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
Andrews, David B (DEED) < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Finally, I may be old school in my views, but I separate
> screen readers from "screen enlargers," or "magnification
> software." Clearly the line has blurred somewhat, with
> Zoomtext and Magic offering more screen-reader-like
> features,
We presume that respondents used the screen reader functionality of
their software regardless of their disability type. We'll be more
explicit in future surveys to try and better delineate between screen
reader only usage and screen reader usage as a supplement to some
vision.
> I do not know of any totally blind person using either
> one as a screen reader alone.
I hope that more than anything that the survey is causing us to
question statements like this. I'm reminded of someone that told me
they didn't know a single person that voted for Romney over Obama.
Well, there were 61 million people (47.2% of voters) that did.
Someone's personal interactions within their limited sphere are easily
believed to be the norm when often they are far from it.
> So, lots of good data, and it helps us see trends, but
> people shouldn't take the numbers literally.
Why shouldn't they? It's not like we made them up. You might be (and
should be) skeptical about whether the numbers represent the entire
screen reader user population, but I can assure you that the numbers
we report are "literally" what the 2515 respondents indicated.
Jared
From: Andrews, David B (DEED)
Date: Tue, Sep 01 2015 3:21PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
Jared:
I probably wasn't clear enough in a couple of my statements -- sorry.
I should have said something like "While the screen reader-like capabilities of Zoomtext and Magic have certainly increased, in my opinion they are not at the point where a totally blind person could use them as a screen reader. While somebody may be doing so, I am not aware of anyone."
Certainly I don't know all blind or visually impaired person, but I do have contact with a wider variety than most.
When I said you shouldn't take the numbers literally, I did mean in terms of generalizing them to the entire population. The numbers themselves are valid, and I know you do everything you can to make them as accurate as you can.
Thanks!
Dave
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Tue, Sep 01 2015 8:18PM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | Next message →
This is great information Jared, thanks for digging in on those details.
AWK
On 9/1/15, 16:50, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Jared Smith" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
>> I think that it would be very interesting to see a
>> breakdown of top primary AT used by end-users
>> who place themselves into the different categories.
>
>I've added some details on this to the survey.
>
>For respondents that report having low vision, 53.5% use ZoomText,
>16.5% use JAWS, 12.2% use Window-Eyes, 8.7% use NVDA, and 4.6% use
>VoiceOver. I don't think the ZoomText numbers here are very
>surprising. 3.5% report using Other, which is where MAGic would be
>accounted for.
>
>For respondents that report blindness, 38.9% use JAWS, 26.5% use
>Window-Eyes, 16.9% use NVDA, 8.7% use VoiceOver, and 4.6% use
>ZoomText.
>
>ZoomText was also more commonly used by users with auditory, motor,
>and cognitive disabilities than by users with blindness.
>
>There's no doubt that an increased number of respondents with low
>vision and other disabilities notably changed the screen reader
>percentages. However, despite someone's claim that the low vision
>ZoomText users "ruined" the survey, when you compare responses to the
>other survey questions from those who report blindness vs. those who
>report low vision, or JAWS users vs. ZoomText users, there really are
>few notable differences. The most notable difference is in mobile
>screen reader usage - 80.2% of blind respondents use a mobile screen
>reader compared to only 52.8% of low vision users. This likely
>accounts for much of the overall decline in mobile screen reader
>usage.
>
>Thanks for prompting me to look further into these aspects of the survey data.
>
>Jared
>>>>
From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Date: Wed, Sep 02 2015 7:03AM
Subject: Re: Something's amiss with the latest survey
← Previous message | No next message
Really useful Jared! Thank you!
* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
Cell: 703-371-5545 | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545