E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 1 (In chronological order)

From: julian.rickards@ndm.gov.on.ca
Date: Mon, Jul 28 2003 7:39AM
Subject: RE: Opera -evaluating Web accessibility software
No previous message | No next message

Jon wrote:

> I don't think we should require people to buy assistive
> technologies to be able to access content.
>
> If I can get built-in zooming features for changing the size
> and colors of
> text content, why should I have to get and learn Zoomtext or Magic?

Agreed but there are problems that we have to deal with that are not simple.
Often I have thought that those of us who are trying to create accessible
sites for the blind*, it is we who are the blind ones because we, certainly
myself, don't truly understand what the blind experience with their
accessible technologies. *(I realize that sightedness is only one of the
conditions we are trying to accomodate.)

There are various accessibility software and technologies used and not all
of them are identical in what they can and can't do, versioning issues
aside. JAWS and perhaps other software work as a layer on top of Windows
(what about Macs?), IBM's HPR is a standalone product and Opera does not
meet the specs of MSAA although it has some other accessible features.
Anyone reminded of the browser wars?

Eric Meyer (and perhaps others) have created a CSS compatibility list which
identifies what CSS works with what browser and version. Has anyone
considered a similar list for the major accessibility technologies? How they
react to various CSS and JavaScript "inputs"?

Jules


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