WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: BrowseAloud

for

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Mar 24, 2011 12:36PM

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 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 REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> * ReadSpeaker http://www.readspeaker.com/. Contact Stefanie Cuschnir @
> <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL 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 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 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 REMOVED> > 3/24/2011 7:04 AM >>>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:53, Patrick H. Lauke
> < <EMAIL 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
>