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

Sun Feb 19 20:26:24 UTC 2012

	After reading this article and looking though what would consider
facts vs fact concerns me greatly. I am not “completely blind” by any
standers, but print is my last choice when it comes to reading. My
eyesight has gotten worse over time. I can see color, objects and some
details depending on how close I am to an object or a person. One of
my big worries is this article is  implying that if you have some eye
sight that you are going to use enlargement programs like zoom text.
For me my eye condition is bearable, but if I read and try to focus
from spot to spot, I get a headaches and eye pain.  I have a limited
field of eyesight, a cataract, no center eyesight, light sensitivity,
a stigmatism   and a eye condition known as FVER (Familial Exudative
Vitreoretinopathy). Familial Exudative Vitreo-retinopathy, written as,
"FEVR," and pronounced by doctors as, "Fever," is a an eye disease
affecting the retina, found at the back of the eye, the vitreous, the
clear, "gelatin like," substance inside the center of the eye and the
blood vessels that feed the retina.  It is a genetic disease, meaning
that it occurs in one or more family members.  Its severity is vary
unpredictable, even within the same family and even between eyes of
the same person.  When it occurs in a person, it usually occurs
without any symptoms and causes no eye problems.  Unfortunately for
some, it can cause minor to serious eye problems.  In the cases where
FEVR is serious, it usually shows up before the age of ten.  When FEVR
occurs in childhood it's severity can be extremely variable causing
some vision problems to almost complete blindness at birth.  Any way I
use to glaucoma in my other eye when I had it. My point is that
everyone’s case is different. In my case they wanted me to try a zoom
program and I did. I did not like it and I did switch  to jaws. The
reason is that I could not stand the constant movement and refocusing.
Screen readers seem to be marketed for the completely blind and not on
a case-to-case bases. I fought a year for a screen reader that is
supposed to be “just for the blind. In my case I needed something
else. Another big problem that someone brought up is that you need to
learn the products. I spent a good 6 months working at MCBTC training
on it and many other things.  I learned the basics and realized how
much of a help it was that I played and learned using the demo as
well.  In the case that 90% of people use enlargement software, I am
wondering if that is their primary method of reading. In my case, I
read large print, but love computer documents, when I can get my hands
on them. As for training, I feel that after a year of learning and
using the product or more at this point, you have to want to learn to
be just successful as your sighted workers, peers and not want to be
defined by your eyesight and by the same thing, everyone else is.  I
had a heck of a year fighting for a screen reader, the reason it is
perceived   as just for the blind user and not the low sighted user.
Another thing as dumb as it sounds that helped me earn and is still
helping, is that I forced myself to learn html that way I will
understand the internet and websites more. I wanted and still want to
be an equal. I do think that basic training   is necessary to get
started learning this complex stuff that has now become easy for me.
Everyone is different and there eye conditions can be the same, but
the effects can vary a lot.

On 2/19/12, Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com> wrote:
> Oh, this is very interesting.  Thank you Mike for articulating the
> other side of this.
>
> I'd like to quote and then respond two items from your message.
>
> First Quote:
> "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."
>
> Ignoring for the moment the word "every" in your statement above,
> let's think about large companies that want to test accessibility,
> such as Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.
>
> You're proposing that these companies stage human run usability tests
> on *each* new or changed product using 8 to 10 different AT solutions.
>
> As a comparison, none of the companies I mention above would
> consider doing this amount of mainstream usability testing against
> different web browsers.  I believe that this is way to high a bar for
> us to expect any web site developer to meet
>
> Instead, we should pick a model screen reader, and begin to insist
> that it be used in *all* AT usability testing.  That screen reader
> could then be given the responsibility of reporting out problems they
> encounter for which there is no documented solution.  This puts that
> company in the drivers seat for finding a solution.
>
> For this to work, we need a screen reader whose development is not
> financed by direct sales.
>
> As to the word "every", I don't think you really mean every web site
> developer.  If I develop a photo sharing site for my family to use,
> say www.barboursphotos.com, this probably should not have to pass the
> accessibility test.
>
> The question about who should be obliged to pass any accessibility
> tests is a sticky one.
>
> And, your second quote
>
> "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."
>
> So, of course he is.  He's trying to minimize the amount of effort
> needed to make his web sites accessible.  This is reasonable and makes
> perfect sense to me.  Why wouldn't you expect any developer of any
> product to increase their efficiency?
>
> Jim
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 08:49:22PM -0800, Mike Freeman wrote:
>> 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 usability 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/blindhelpfultech%40gmail.com
>