E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

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

From: sucharu
Date: Thu, Aug 11 2016 10:52PM
Subject: Do Section 508 lays criterion for assistive technologies being used for accessibility testing
No previous message | Next message →

Hi All,

Hope you all doing well.

I do have a concern: Do Section 508 lays some criterion for assistive
technologies being used to evaluate some software or web content?

Here is a scenario, some application is to be tested with ChromeVox (to
carry out usability part of accessibility testing), while the underlying
content is confirming to WCAG 2.0 but is inaccessible for screen-reader
user. Hence, it fails to pass usability tests.

As far as I know, VPATs don't contain information regarding the test
matrixbeing used while carrying out accessibility testing.



Best,

Sucharu

From: Srinivasu Chakravarthula
Date: Thu, Aug 11 2016 11:14PM
Subject: Re: Do Section 508 lays criterion for assistive technologies being used for accessibility testing
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello Sucharu,
As far as I know, neither Section 508 nor WCAG 2.0 set any criterion on
what screen reader to be used for accessibility testing. It's choice of
testers or the test agency. What I usually do is I test with one screen
reader and when I have a situation where I know that issue may be related
to limitation of screen reader, I'll double check with second screen
reader. At the same time, I will not only rely on screen reader but also do
review the code to ensure right technique is used.

Hope this helps,
-Srinivasu

Regards,

Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu/
Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://serveominclusion.com

Let's create an inclusive web!

Lead Accessibility Consultant, Informatica
Hon. Joint Secretary, The National Association for the Blind, Karnataka
Branch

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:22 AM, sucharu < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Hope you all doing well.
>
> I do have a concern: Do Section 508 lays some criterion for assistive
> technologies being used to evaluate some software or web content?
>
> Here is a scenario, some application is to be tested with ChromeVox (to
> carry out usability part of accessibility testing), while the underlying
> content is confirming to WCAG 2.0 but is inaccessible for screen-reader
> user. Hence, it fails to pass usability tests.
>
> As far as I know, VPATs don't contain information regarding the test
> matrixbeing used while carrying out accessibility testing.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Sucharu
>

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2016 12:29AM
Subject: Re: Do Section 508 lays criterion for assistive technologies being used for accessibility testing
← Previous message | Next message →

Testing comes up at least once a month on this list.

One theory that many of us hold is that if we, the content creators, follow WCAG or PDF/UA correctly, there shouldn't be a need to test with any assistive technology. Reviewing the code, tag trees, reading orders, etc. should be sufficient to verify that the webpage or document file is compliant.

It's up to the assistive technology manufacturers to ensure that their particular software and hardware is doing their part of the job, which is to interpret the compliant code and render or present it to the user. (And that's what a lot of our postings focus on: JAWS did it this way, NVDA another, and Voice Over another way. Someday, I hope they all do it the same way, or at least present a similar experience to the users.)

And the user is responsible for learning how to use their technology, and we have a hard time anticipating how they will navigate and interpret the content we create. Every human tester with disabilities we've hired has come up with a different twist on the same material.

That being said, it is wise for content creators to run our work through various assistive technologies. That's where we find places where we can improve the experience for everyone and go beyond just compliance.

One more item: In the US, it would be against federal regulations for a federal government agency, such as the US Access Board, to recommend one vendor's product over another, or make one mandatory over another by writing it into the regulations. I consul agencies regarding their contracting language for outsourcing services. This issue just came up at one agency that wanted to require a specific software program. To avoid lawsuits from vendors and manufacturers, they instead are listing at least 2 choices of software that can be used and are detailing the QA items that will determine whether the deliverable is acceptable.

If the Access Board goes and mandates JAWS versus NVDA, for example, I bet there will be a lawsuit quick as a bunny can hop.

--Bevi Chagnon

— — —
Bevi Chagnon | www.PubCom.com
Technologists, Consultants, Trainers, Designers, and Developers
for publishing & communication
| Acrobat PDF | Print | EPUBS | Sec. 508 Accessibility |
— — —

From: Jamous, JP
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2016 5:29AM
Subject: Re: Do Section 508 lays criterion for assistivetechnologies being used for accessibility testing
← Previous message | Next message →

If the Access Board goes and mandates JAWS versus NVDA, for example, I bet there will be a lawsuit quick as a bunny can hop.

Thank you. That was exactly what came to mind when this issue was brought up on the list. Where did reasonable accommodation go?

I work for a for-profit company and we focus on JAWS, NVDA and VoiceOver for Mac, iPad and iPhone.

Mobile technology is on the rise and more and more people are using it to conduct business. I have 5 Apps on my iPhone related only to my work.

I am not stating that this government agency should have an app. Yet, it should have an accessible site for small view. If not, that's another issue.

From: Brandon Keith Biggs
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2016 9:08AM
Subject: Re: Do Section 508 lays criterion for assistive technologies being used for accessibility testing
← Previous message | No next message

Hello,
"One more item: In the US, it would be against federal regulations for a
federal government agency, such as the US Access Board, to recommend one
vendor's product over another, or make one mandatory over another by
writing it into the regulations. I consul agencies regarding their
contracting language for outsourcing services. This issue just came up at
one agency that wanted to require a specific software program. To avoid
lawsuits from vendors and manufacturers, they instead are listing at least
2 choices of software that can be used and are detailing the QA items that
will determine whether the deliverable is acceptable."

I would love to see this regulation! Pearson and the state of CA both
require Jaws for any testing that goes on, so despite the student being
recommended NVDA by their assistive technology professional, we need to
teach them enough of Jaws so they don't go crazy on their tests.
Thank you,


Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Chagnon | PubCom < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> Testing comes up at least once a month on this list.
>
> One theory that many of us hold is that if we, the content creators,
> follow WCAG or PDF/UA correctly, there shouldn't be a need to test with any
> assistive technology. Reviewing the code, tag trees, reading orders, etc.
> should be sufficient to verify that the webpage or document file is
> compliant.
>
> It's up to the assistive technology manufacturers to ensure that their
> particular software and hardware is doing their part of the job, which is
> to interpret the compliant code and render or present it to the user. (And
> that's what a lot of our postings focus on: JAWS did it this way, NVDA
> another, and Voice Over another way. Someday, I hope they all do it the
> same way, or at least present a similar experience to the users.)
>
> And the user is responsible for learning how to use their technology, and
> we have a hard time anticipating how they will navigate and interpret the
> content we create. Every human tester with disabilities we've hired has
> come up with a different twist on the same material.
>
> That being said, it is wise for content creators to run our work through
> various assistive technologies. That's where we find places where we can
> improve the experience for everyone and go beyond just compliance.
>
> One more item: In the US, it would be against federal regulations for a
> federal government agency, such as the US Access Board, to recommend one
> vendor's product over another, or make one mandatory over another by
> writing it into the regulations. I consul agencies regarding their
> contracting language for outsourcing services. This issue just came up at
> one agency that wanted to require a specific software program. To avoid
> lawsuits from vendors and manufacturers, they instead are listing at least
> 2 choices of software that can be used and are detailing the QA items that
> will determine whether the deliverable is acceptable.
>
> If the Access Board goes and mandates JAWS versus NVDA, for example, I bet
> there will be a lawsuit quick as a bunny can hop.
>
> --Bevi Chagnon
>
> — — —
> Bevi Chagnon | www.PubCom.com
> Technologists, Consultants, Trainers, Designers, and Developers
> for publishing & communication
> | Acrobat PDF | Print | EPUBS | Sec. 508 Accessibility |
> — — —
>
>
> > > > >