E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 9 (In chronological order)

From: Ilya Shubik
Date: Tue, Mar 06 2012 4:00AM
Subject: Screen readers usage and support
No previous message | Next message →

Hello,

We have started a project at my company to ensure that webapps that we
are running are Section 508 compliant. One of the questions that we
are trying to wrap our heads around is whether there are some stats
available on screen readers usage and its %% split between different
versions.

Should we be aiming to support ALL screenreaders available on market
and look for most compatibility with all internet browsers. Or should
we be aligning to top used screen readers?

Thanks for feedback

From: Jeevan Reddy
Date: Tue, Mar 06 2012 6:12AM
Subject: Re: Screen readers usage and support
← Previous message | Next message →

Shubik,
you can see the screen reader survey @
http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/

When it comes to how many screen readers should we support there is no
statistics available. Follow the ARIA best practices along with the
section 508 standards that you follow that will enhance accessibility
for most of the screen readers



On 3/6/12, Ilya Shubik < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have started a project at my company to ensure that webapps that we
> are running are Section 508 compliant. One of the questions that we
> are trying to wrap our heads around is whether there are some stats
> available on screen readers usage and its %% split between different
> versions.
>
> Should we be aiming to support ALL screenreaders available on market
> and look for most compatibility with all internet browsers. Or should
> we be aligning to top used screen readers?
>
> Thanks for feedback
>

From: Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E]
Date: Tue, Mar 06 2012 1:21PM
Subject: Re: Screen readers usage and support
← Previous message | Next message →

Keep in mind the following
1. EIT products conform to Section 508
2. Federal agencies comply (or not) with Section 508
3. JAWS or any screen reader-compatible software does not equal Section 508 conformant nor does it equal accessible to oh so many other people with other disabilities.
4. Accessible does not always equal Section 508-conformant
5. Section 508-conformant does not always equal accessible (except when the Functional Performance Criteria are taken seriously)
6. Accessible for a (fill in the blank) does not necessarily mean Accessible for any other (fill in the blank) - using either disabilities for each blank or assistive technologies for each blank.
Is your Assistive Technology testing being done by real-life users of that AT or by non-disabled users who really aren't fluent in the AT?
Is your Assistive Technology testing being done in addition to manual testing based on the formal Section 508 standards from the US Access Board?
What company are you with?
Gary M. Morin, Program Analyst

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?"

From: Ryan Hemphill
Date: Tue, Mar 06 2012 1:39PM
Subject: Re: Screen readers usage and support
← Previous message | Next message →

I'd also like to point out that many people coding out there do not realize
that ARIA only takes care of Screen Reader users. While this is not part
of 508 compliance at all, it has been a general trend in accessibility
focus with regard to online research and blogging.

Simply put, many supposedly accessible solutions are really not taking of
of anyone else except blind users. I'm just backing up Gary's point here.
It's very easy to find the accessibility rules for the blind, but it's
only a piece of the pie.

Ryan

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E] <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Keep in mind the following
> 1. EIT products conform to Section 508
> 2. Federal agencies comply (or not) with Section 508
> 3. JAWS or any screen reader-compatible software does not equal
> Section 508 conformant nor does it equal accessible to oh so many other
> people with other disabilities.
> 4. Accessible does not always equal Section 508-conformant
> 5. Section 508-conformant does not always equal accessible (except
> when the Functional Performance Criteria are taken seriously)
> 6. Accessible for a (fill in the blank) does not necessarily mean
> Accessible for any other (fill in the blank) - using either disabilities
> for each blank or assistive technologies for each blank.
> Is your Assistive Technology testing being done by real-life users of that
> AT or by non-disabled users who really aren't fluent in the AT?
> Is your Assistive Technology testing being done in addition to manual
> testing based on the formal Section 508 standards from the US Access Board?
> What company are you with?
> Gary M. Morin, Program Analyst
>
> 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?"
>
>

From: Ryan Hemphill
Date: Tue, Mar 06 2012 1:48PM
Subject: Re: Screen readers usage and support
← Previous message | Next message →

One more thing. Be very very careful when you start adding ARIA. Make
sure you check on compatibility.

Example: When you are in Windows 7, if you place focus on a tag with the
attribute aria-labelledby="id-12345" you will not only break the screen
reader, you will cause IE to immediately crash. You literally have to put
in aria-labeledby (one "l") to stop this from happening in JAWS - and not
only does that not follow the spec, the hack won't work anywhere else - so
you need to do browser and OS detection before inserting this bad boy.

Point being, test it first before you add it. And I would suggest you add
it only when you absolutely have to because you can't get it done with
typical HTML. I can give you plenty of other examples, but I think you get
the idea.

Ryan.

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ryan Hemphill
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:

> I'd also like to point out that many people coding out there do not
> realize that ARIA only takes care of Screen Reader users. While this is
> not part of 508 compliance at all, it has been a general trend in
> accessibility focus with regard to online research and blogging.
>
> Simply put, many supposedly accessible solutions are really not taking of
> of anyone else except blind users. I'm just backing up Gary's point here.
> It's very easy to find the accessibility rules for the blind, but it's
> only a piece of the pie.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E] <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Keep in mind the following
>> 1. EIT products conform to Section 508
>> 2. Federal agencies comply (or not) with Section 508
>> 3. JAWS or any screen reader-compatible software does not equal
>> Section 508 conformant nor does it equal accessible to oh so many other
>> people with other disabilities.
>> 4. Accessible does not always equal Section 508-conformant
>> 5. Section 508-conformant does not always equal accessible (except
>> when the Functional Performance Criteria are taken seriously)
>> 6. Accessible for a (fill in the blank) does not necessarily mean
>> Accessible for any other (fill in the blank) - using either disabilities
>> for each blank or assistive technologies for each blank.
>> Is your Assistive Technology testing being done by real-life users of
>> that AT or by non-disabled users who really aren't fluent in the AT?
>> Is your Assistive Technology testing being done in addition to manual
>> testing based on the formal Section 508 standards from the US Access Board?
>> What company are you with?
>> Gary M. Morin, Program Analyst
>>
>> 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?"
>>
>>

From: Bryan Garaventa
Date: Tue, Mar 06 2012 2:21PM
Subject: Re: Screen readers usage and support
← Previous message | Next message →

I have to say that this is only true when ARIA is viewed as a 'catch all'
solution, which it isn't.

ARIA should only be added after full keyboard support is already built into
the feature or application. I agree that the general discussions often focus
on screen reader support as being the top priority, but ensuring keyboard
support before adding ARIA will accomplish both.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Hemphill" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Screen readers usage and support


> I'd also like to point out that many people coding out there do not
> realize
> that ARIA only takes care of Screen Reader users. While this is not part
> of 508 compliance at all, it has been a general trend in accessibility
> focus with regard to online research and blogging.
>
> Simply put, many supposedly accessible solutions are really not taking of
> of anyone else except blind users. I'm just backing up Gary's point here.
> It's very easy to find the accessibility rules for the blind, but it's
> only a piece of the pie.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E] <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Keep in mind the following
>> 1. EIT products conform to Section 508
>> 2. Federal agencies comply (or not) with Section 508
>> 3. JAWS or any screen reader-compatible software does not equal
>> Section 508 conformant nor does it equal accessible to oh so many other
>> people with other disabilities.
>> 4. Accessible does not always equal Section 508-conformant
>> 5. Section 508-conformant does not always equal accessible (except
>> when the Functional Performance Criteria are taken seriously)
>> 6. Accessible for a (fill in the blank) does not necessarily mean
>> Accessible for any other (fill in the blank) - using either disabilities
>> for each blank or assistive technologies for each blank.
>> Is your Assistive Technology testing being done by real-life users of
>> that
>> AT or by non-disabled users who really aren't fluent in the AT?
>> Is your Assistive Technology testing being done in addition to manual
>> testing based on the formal Section 508 standards from the US Access
>> Board?
>> What company are you with?
>> Gary M. Morin, Program Analyst
>>
>> 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?"
>>
>>

From: Elle
Date: Tue, Mar 06 2012 3:33PM
Subject: Re: Screen readers usage and support
← Previous message | Next message →

Gary:

I just wanted to thank you for the thorough reply and excellent quote at
the end of your post.

Cheers,
Elle

*^* Sent with my cell. Please forgive typos.*^*
On Mar 6, 2012 3:24 PM, "Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E]" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> Keep in mind the following
> 1. EIT products conform to Section 508
> 2. Federal agencies comply (or not) with Section 508
> 3. JAWS or any screen reader-compatible software does not equal
> Section 508 conformant nor does it equal accessible to oh so many other
> people with other disabilities.
> 4. Accessible does not always equal Section 508-conformant
> 5. Section 508-conformant does not always equal accessible (except
> when the Functional Performance Criteria are taken seriously)
> 6. Accessible for a (fill in the blank) does not necessarily mean
> Accessible for any other (fill in the blank) - using either disabilities
> for each blank or assistive technologies for each blank.
> Is your Assistive Technology testing being done by real-life users of that
> AT or by non-disabled users who really aren't fluent in the AT?
> Is your Assistive Technology testing being done in addition to manual
> testing based on the formal Section 508 standards from the US Access Board?
> What company are you with?
> Gary M. Morin, Program Analyst
>
> 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?"
>
>

From: Ryan Hemphill
Date: Tue, Mar 06 2012 6:30PM
Subject: Re: Screen readers usage and support
← Previous message | Next message →

I'm with Bryan on this 100%. One of the best descriptions of
appropriate a11y strategy is provided by Derek Featherstone, who talks
about the layers of accessibility as a stack.

At the bottom of the stack is HTML, then CSS, then JavaScript, and
finally ARIA. His argument, which is right about 95% of the time, is
that you should be trying to keep your accessibility solutions as low
in the stack as possible and only resort to the next layer when you
have assessed that it is truly required. Point being, stick to basics
and get everything out of each level before you start addressing the
next one - assuming you need to at all.

As far as addressing the needs of multiple groups, this can be a
struggle and I would suggest that you try to review as much of your
508 rules and who it affects before you start building your strategy.
Figuring out what you need to do as a whole can save you a lot of
time, money and bandwidth.

Feel free to reach out when you need a review. I'm sure the group
will respond and help out when we have a better idea of what your
needs are.

Ryan

On 3/6/12, Bryan Garaventa < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I have to say that this is only true when ARIA is viewed as a 'catch all'
> solution, which it isn't.
>
> ARIA should only be added after full keyboard support is already built into
> the feature or application. I agree that the general discussions often focus
> on screen reader support as being the top priority, but ensuring keyboard
> support before adding ARIA will accomplish both.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan Hemphill" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Screen readers usage and support
>
>
>> I'd also like to point out that many people coding out there do not
>> realize
>> that ARIA only takes care of Screen Reader users. While this is not part
>> of 508 compliance at all, it has been a general trend in accessibility
>> focus with regard to online research and blogging.
>>
>> Simply put, many supposedly accessible solutions are really not taking of
>> of anyone else except blind users. I'm just backing up Gary's point here.
>> It's very easy to find the accessibility rules for the blind, but it's
>> only a piece of the pie.
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E] <
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>>> Keep in mind the following
>>> 1. EIT products conform to Section 508
>>> 2. Federal agencies comply (or not) with Section 508
>>> 3. JAWS or any screen reader-compatible software does not equal
>>> Section 508 conformant nor does it equal accessible to oh so many other
>>> people with other disabilities.
>>> 4. Accessible does not always equal Section 508-conformant
>>> 5. Section 508-conformant does not always equal accessible (except
>>> when the Functional Performance Criteria are taken seriously)
>>> 6. Accessible for a (fill in the blank) does not necessarily mean
>>> Accessible for any other (fill in the blank) - using either disabilities
>>> for each blank or assistive technologies for each blank.
>>> Is your Assistive Technology testing being done by real-life users of
>>> that
>>> AT or by non-disabled users who really aren't fluent in the AT?
>>> Is your Assistive Technology testing being done in addition to manual
>>> testing based on the formal Section 508 standards from the US Access
>>> Board?
>>> What company are you with?
>>> Gary M. Morin, Program Analyst
>>>
>>> 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?"
>>>
>>>

From: Ilya Shubik
Date: Wed, Mar 07 2012 3:18AM
Subject: Re: Screen readers usage and support
← Previous message | No next message

Jeevan, Gary,

Thanks for prompt responses and links to references. That is generally
the strategy we were going with right now.

We will have a external company to perform excessive AT testing of the
site on top of in house qa

Best regards

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E]
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Keep in mind the following
>
> EIT products conform to Section 508
> Federal agencies comply (or not) with Section 508
> JAWS or any screen reader-compatible software does not equal Section 508
> conformant nor does it equal accessible to oh so many other people with
> other disabilities.
> Accessible does not always equal Section 508-conformant
> Section 508-conformant does not always equal accessible (except when the
> Functional Performance Criteria are taken seriously)
> Accessible for a (fill in the blank) does not necessarily mean Accessible
> for any other (fill in the blank) - using either disabilities for each blank
> or assistive technologies for each blank.
>
> Is your Assistive Technology testing being done by real-life users of that
> AT or by non-disabled users who really aren't fluent in the AT?
> Is your Assistive Technology testing being done in addition to manual
> testing based on the formal Section 508 standards from the US Access Board?
> What company are you with?
> Gary M. Morin, Program Analyst
>
> 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?”
>
>