WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Testing with Alternative User Agents (was RE: Preferred OS for screen readers)

for

From: John Foliot - bytown internet
Date: Sep 5, 2002 6:09AM


I second Kynn's point.

JAWS is a wonderful application which extends "computer" functionality to
blind users; web, word-processing, spreadsheets, email, etc. For testing
purposes it may in fact be overkill.

I (as Kynn suggested) use IBM's Home Page Reader as a testing tool, as well
as Lynx and an old version of pwWebspeak (no longer available
unfortunately). They "read-out-loud" a web page, which is what I believe
you want to do as part of a test process.

Developers on a budget could also look at Simply Web 2000
(http://www.econointl.com/sw/) - NOTE, this is *really* stripped down, but
has a price tag to match (Free). Other alternative browers / user agents
can be found at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/Browsing

As part of a regular demonstration/evaluation session I facilitate each
week, I also use a Cell Phone emulator, which, well, emulates web content on
a cell phone. While the practicality of it is limited at best (it does not
support any form functions, chokes on named anchors, etc.) it demonstrates
to the uninitiated that accessible web design is more than just web sites
for the blind (or those in wheelchairs, deaf, etc.); rather, accessible
means accessible to all devices/users. (Note: there seems to be a number of
cell phone emulators out there - do a Google - but the one I use is the
DeckIt emulator from PyWeb - http://www.pyweb.com/tools/ - available for
Windows and Linux)

JF




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> Sent: September 4, 2002 12:41 PM
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Subject: Re: Preferred OS for screen readers
>
>
> At 10:29 AM -0400 9/4/02, Mark Rew wrote:
> >My question is:
> >Does purchasing a Screen Reader serve your purpose. Consider
> getting a review
> >team outside of your organization to review your products for all
> >accessibility. And, of course, use the standards such as the
> W3C and Section
> >508.
>
> I second this. Non-blind people trying to use screenreaders will
> almost certainly fail -- by getting false positives and overlooking
> true negatives. Why? Because screenreaders are such a complex,
> specialized piece of software that in order to use them correctly,
> you have to practice a lot and be highly motivated. Blind users
> fit those criteria and are able to distinguish actual problems
> with a Web site from difficulties in using the screenreader or
> the browser. Non-blind people do not.
>
> If you want to test your page with a screenreader, get yourself one
> or three blind folks on-call and hire them as necessary. If you really
> must attempt to hear a Web page, try something like IBM's Home
> Page Reader which is a fraction of the cost as well as less
> complex -- it does everything you (assuming you're not blind) need
> to do in order to get a sense of Web page problems.
>
> --Kynn
>
> --
> Kynn Bartlett < <EMAIL REMOVED> > http://kynn.com
> Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
> Next Book: Teach Yourself CSS in 24 http://cssin24hours.com
> Kynn on Web Accessibility ->> http://kynn.com/+sitepoint
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/