E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)

From: Alan Zaitchik
Date: Thu, Aug 11 2016 6:28AM
Subject: JAWS, NVDA, and Captivate
No previous message | Next message →

We are required to deliver a project to a Federal agency in Captivate. We have it working in NVDA, but not in JAWS (v16). Legally/contractually we have been given an "exemption" by the client, so my question is not legal/contractual but ethical/professional: would people with sight disabilities prefer to be told that the project only works well with the NVDA screen reader, or to be given an alternative text-only (web pages) version with all the same informational content as the Captivate site that any screen reader could handle. I know someone is bound to say "Do both", but there is no money to do both. The site has no real interactivity so the text only version is effectively an "equivalent alternative" presentation- just much harder to comprehend as its presented and to retain. I suppose another alternative might be to make audio recordings of some of the material, just to 'break it up" a bit, but that would be even more out of scope for the budget.
My blood boils that a Federal agency would require us to use Captivate, but... I have fought and lost that battle. (In fact I mentioned this many posts ago in this forum.)
A

From: Jamous, JP
Date: Thu, Aug 11 2016 6:46AM
Subject: Re: JAWS, NVDA, and Captivate
← Previous message | Next message →

I'd recommend the latter as it will work for both screen readers especially that the content is static and not dynamic.

I am a JAWS user and don't know NVDA's shortcut keys to use it. I am also an average computer user. I don't want to learn a new screen reader just to have accessibility on that government web site.

I was taught how to use JAWS and that's all I know. Yes, NVDA is open source, but I would have to learn a new set of keyboard instructions to read with it.

Ethically and legally your government agency is violating both in my opinion. Yes, by law they are supposed to provide accessibility, but not constraint the user to one screen reader only. What if I am a Mac user and do not have Windows?

The other issue I am confused about is why is it working with NVDA and not JAWS and VoiceOver? Something in the markup is not proper. I just showed an example to Angela regarding radio buttons last evening. It showed how one type of markup worked for both JAWS and NVDA, while the other type only worked for NVDA. So are you using the proper semantic?

From: Moore,Michael (Accessibility) (HHSC)
Date: Thu, Aug 11 2016 7:47AM
Subject: Re: JAWS, NVDA, and Captivate
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Alan,

Contact me off list - = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = and I will send you a pre-publication version of instructions for creating accessible Captivate training. The person who developed these guidelines made a believer out of me that it actually is possible to create Captivate training modules that work with assistive technologies. We tested some trainings that they developed with JAWS, ZoomText, NVDA and Dragon and they worked. (at least in our environment - this is Flash after all).

It may be too late for this project but they may come in helpful on future projects.

Mike Moore
Accessibility Coordinator
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Civil Rights Office
(512) 438-3431 (Office)

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Thu, Aug 11 2016 11:09AM
Subject: Re: JAWS, NVDA, and Captivate
← Previous message | Next message →

> We are required to deliver a project to a Federal agency in Captivate. We have it working in NVDA, but not in JAWS (v16).

I suspect that the issue is not JAWS's fault but in how the content is technically rendered . That is-- the code is likely not technically compliant of if it is not implemented in a robust way. Captivate can render Flash and HTML content. Both have challenges although there are things you can do to improve accessibility there are some limitations.

Let's examine one possible situation. In HTML when you navigate with the virtual cursor using the arrows with NVDA focus is set on the link. Pressing enter on the link sends a mouse down, mouse up, and click. With JAWS arrowing to the link -- the link is not focused. When the user presses enter the link is focused and then a click event is sent -- no mouse up or down are sent. Ideally the links would work with the click event and with the enter key being pressed on the link -- but the links should not require mouse events being sent. But I've seen cases where the links work on enter and on mouse down but NOT click -- and this is what trips JAWS up. I don't feel this is the JAWS issue though as click should be supported as universal programmatic way to activate a link.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group 
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703.637.8957 (Office)

Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog
Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!

From: Sean Murphy
Date: Thu, Aug 11 2016 10:40PM
Subject: Re: JAWS, NVDA, and Captivate
← Previous message | No next message

Alan,

I would ask them the break down of their user base for each screen reader. This would then address your need. If they do't know, then I would lean towards Jaws. Micheal resource sounds good to look at.

My concern could the agency be leaving them themselves open for an court action under section 508 or ADA?

Sean


> On 11 Aug 2016, at 10:28 PM, Alan Zaitchik < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> We are required to deliver a project to a Federal agency in Captivate. We have it working in NVDA, but not in JAWS (v16). Legally/contractually we have been given an "exemption" by the client, so my question is not legal/contractual but ethical/professional: would people with sight disabilities prefer to be told that the project only works well with the NVDA screen reader, or to be given an alternative text-only (web pages) version with all the same informational content as the Captivate site that any screen reader could handle. I know someone is bound to say "Do both", but there is no money to do both. The site has no real interactivity so the text only version is effectively an "equivalent alternative" presentation- just much harder to comprehend as its presented and to retain. I suppose another alternative might be to make audio recordings of some of the material, just to 'break it up" a bit, but that would be even more out of scope for the budget.
> My blood boils that a Federal agency would require us to use Captivate, but... I have fought and lost that battle. (In fact I mentioned this many posts ago in this forum.)
> A
> > > >