WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: BrowseAloud

for

From: Giovanni Duarte
Date: Mar 24, 2011 6:39PM

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 REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL 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 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
>