[nfbcs] Should JAWS be used for web accessibility testing (was Re: Opinions?)

[Mike Freeman]

Jim:

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. Although I argue in another message
that there's no good way to include or exclude a particular screen-reader
from accessibility or useability tests, I also think that excluding a
particular screen-reader amounts to a value judgment even if it is not
intended as such. Consider how irked Window-eyes users get when everyone
tests their sites against JAWS. Why should JAWS users put up with the same
sort of nonsense?

In fact, I think the article's author is desperately trying to find a way to
lessen work for himself or, put another way, he is hoping he can be lazy and
not do the sort of in-depth testing that is truly required for good
accessibility testing.

I think the only way to do this right would be to specify that *every* site
should be put through a suite of tests by *human* *beings,* not automated
tools, using the following screen-readers at a minimum: JAWS, Window-eyes,
Hal, SuperNova, System Access, NVDA, Coco (sp) and VoiceOver (both on
i-devices and on the Mac). It's a matter for debate whether or not one
should specify note-takers such as the BrailleSense and BrailleNote family
also to be tested.

The only alternative I can see would be to try to get all screen-readers to
behave the same way and, my friends, that ain't a-gonna happen! (grin)

Mike Freeman


-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Jim Barbour
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 8:21 PM
To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
Cc: NABS-L
Subject: [nfbcs] Should JAWS be used for web accessibility testing (was Re:
Opinions?)

I am in 100% agreement with the statement that JAWS should not be used
for web site testing.  However, my reasons differ from the ones
written in the article.

It is not possible today to design and build accessible websites
without performing usability tests.  Further, there are too many
access technologies to test with them all.  So, the question is which
AT should be used to test, and therefore drive improvements to, web
site accessibility?  Whichever one gets chosen will have the
opportunity to informally set standards around how certain types of
content will be handled.

Given this, I think JAWS is not the right answer.   Perhaps NVDA or
SA to go or some other screen reader I'm not aware of could step in?

Jim

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 07:21:31PM -0800, 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-accessib
ility-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/jbar%40barcore.com
> 

_______________________________________________
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/k7uij%40panix.com