[nfbcs] Opinions?

[Curtis Chong]

Greetings:

It is an unfortunate reality in today's technological world that not all
screen reading software captures information in the same way.  I have
personally been involved in situations where a particular Website worked
well with one screen reader and poorly with another.  I recognize that this
poses an incredible challenge for web developers who really want to do the
right thing but don't understand exactly how to use the screen reader to its
fullest effect on the website being tested--not to mention those developers
who don't<smile>.

Another unfortunate reality with which we are pretty well stuck is that JAWS
for Windows is, today, the most widely-used nonvisual screen access program
in the Windows world.  If a particular site tests out well for accessibility
and usability with another screen reader but fails to pass the same test
with JAWS, a lot of blind folks are going to be unhappy despite the good
intentions and efforts of the people who developed the site in the first
place.

As others have correctly pointed out, there is a huge difference between
having controls that can be identified versus having a Website that is truly
usable and efficient for the nonvisual user.  You can have a Website which
meets all of the WCAG 2.0 accessibility guidelines but which dismally falls
short in terms of usability.  In the end, it is usability that determines
efficiency, and it is efficiency that determines, in many cases, whether the
blind user can compete effectively with someone who can see the screen.

The bottom line here is that JAWS should not be excluded from accessibility
testing.  Nor should it be the only screen access program tested.  In the
end, the only way really to determine both accessibility and usability for
any given Website is to have real live people test it, the plethora of
automated solutions available for accessibility testing notwithstanding.

Sincerely,

Curtis Chong