E-mail List Archives
Thread: FW: hyphens, and the lack thereof
Number of posts in this thread: 4 (In chronological order)
From: Ian Lloyd
Date: Wed, May 14 2003 3:59AM
Subject: FW: hyphens, and the lack thereof
No previous message | Next message →
I thought I should throw this out to you guys on the Webaim and BCAB lists,
see if anyone has anything on this topic. Oh, the topic is conjunction of
words and how screen readers deal with them For example, I recommend using
home page instead of homepage, because in JAWS it reads the conjoined phrase
as something like 'hommapuj'
Is there, as Owen asks (note copied below), any web site that covers how
these screen readers interpret prefixes and suffixes that you know of? Or
perhaps you know a web page that lists troublesome words for screen readers?
Looking forward to hearing people's responses!
On Tuesday, May 13, 2003 8:44 PM: Owen Briggs
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > apparantly said:
> lloyd, if you're busy right now, hit delete. this is low priority.
>
> since you pointed out that we should use "web site"
> instead of "website" to avoid sluring by audio software, i've
> been paying more attention to the habit of conjunction.
>
> can you link to any source discussion on the issue?
> preferably by people who rely on readers, or create them?
>
> i'm curious what the real world limits are. there's got to be a
> degree of agility in the software to deal with prefixes and
> suffixes; surely they don't stumble on "repurposed" with a
> short e, instead of enunciating "re-purposed". but i don't
> know that, and i do have some spell checkers that ask me
> if i meant "re purposed", so i think i'd best do a little more
> research into audio software.
>
> got anything like that in the bookmarks?
>
> thanks.
> _______________________________________
>
> http://www.thenoodleincident.com
Regards
Ian Lloyd, Accessify.com
Link: http://www.ian-lloyd.com/
Chat: AIM - uklloydi :: ICQ - 229994467
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Laura Carlson
Date: Thu, May 15 2003 9:01AM
Subject: Commercial accessibility tools
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi,
Has anyone done a commercial accessibility tool comparison or have any
experience with or opinions of:
- AccVerify & AccVerify Server (Hi Software)
- WebXM (Wacthfire)
- InFocus (SSB Technologies)
- PageScreamer and PageScreamer Spider (Crunchy Technologies)
- AccessEnable (RetroAccess)
- Others?
Thanks,
Laura
_________________________________________________________________
Laura L. Carlson
Information Technology Systems and Services
University of Minnesota Duluth
Duluth, MN 55812-3009
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Thu, May 15 2003 9:14AM
Subject: RE: Commercial accessibility tools
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Laura,
Web Accessibility Research Projects at Plymouth University (UK) did a
review of 19 or so products here:
http://www.science.plym.ac.uk/warp/eval/evaluationtools.html
NB: The SENDA legislation it refers to is the UK education version of
section 508.
-Alastair
>
From: Michael Burks
Date: Thu, May 15 2003 10:32AM
Subject: RE: Commercial accessibility tools
← Previous message | No next message
Laura,
I have used HiSoftware tools extensively and found them easy to use and
highly accurate
This included AccVerify/AccMonitor, and Cynthia Says
(http://www.cynthisays.com). The reports are easy to understand and
Cynthia Says has extensive information about accessibility.
Cynthia Says is available online and as a product for a reasonable
price. It is available to K - 12 for free if you can document that you
are working in the K-12 Arena.
Please note the caveat about all automated tools. YOU MUST UNDERSTAND
ACCESSIBILITY to use the tools and to generate accurate reports and to
fix the accessibility problems. You cannot get accurate results if you
do not. This is a HUGE problem. It is not due to the developers of
these tools but to many of those who despite repeated warnings, persist
in the belief that these tools can solve all accessibliity problems.
They cannot, they are tools and they should be used that way. The
people who build and sell these tools do not make such claims, but
nonetheless the beliefs persist.
Sincerely,
Mike Burks