[nabs-l] [nfbcs] Opinions?

[Nicole B. Torcolini at Home]

I certainly agree that it should not be the only screen reader being used, 
but I do not agree either that it should be excluded. Some of the reasons, 
such as it being expensive, I agree were rather reasonable, but some of the 
other ones sounded as though they should have been the reason for using 
JAWS, not the reason for not using it.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin Fjelsted" <kfjelsted at gmail.com>
To: "NFB in Computer Science Mailing List" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
Cc: "NABS-L" <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] [nfbcs] Opinions?


> JAWS should not be the only mechanism for testing the accessibility of 
> sites. There are many other screen-reading  and browser reading tools in 
> use now.
> The increased use of mobile platforms also compounds the variables.
> Standards compliance is the first frontline approach coupled with actual 
> tests using individual high use tools.
> -Kevin
>
> On Feb 18, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Nicole B. Torcolini at Home wrote:
>
>> When doing some research for a project, I found the following article. 
>> What do people think?
>> http://clearhelper.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/stop-using-jaws-for-web-accessibility-testing/
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfbcs mailing list
>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> nfbcs:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/kfjelsted%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nabs-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/ntorcolini%40wavecable.com