[nfbcs] Opinions?

[Gary Wunder]

There is another point here and it hits those of us who use screen readers.
Most of us are not geeks, but if we want full access to the screen, or at
least as full as our technology will allow, we have to know it inside out.
Too many users of JAWS on the web only know how to use the tab key, are
confused by forms mode, do not know how to move by headings forward and
backward, do not know how to look for text on a web page, do not know how to
skip passed repeated links, and do not know how to turn all of those links
into a list. Many do not know how to look for edit fields where entry is
required, many don't know how to look for buttons. If the Jaws cursor is
needed to determine what question is being asked in a dialog box, many can
only tab between cancel and okay and wonder what they are doing if they
press one or the other.

There are training materials for all of this and paid courses where the
individualized training falls short. So you have the question of whether
something is accessible, then usable, then efficiently usable, but one big
variable is the proficiency of the user. Granted it is tough for blind
folks. We need to learn keystrokes to do what is often intuitive for folks
with sight, but it is hard to say when a site is just right. What works for
Curtis may not work for me. What works for me may not work for my wife. For
my wife and I, that means making sure the problem is the technology and not
our knowledge of how to use it.

Warmly,

Gary

 

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Curtis Chong
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 12:03 PM
To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
Subject: [nfbcs] Opinions?

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



_______________________________________________
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/gwunder%40earthlink.net