- From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:40:08 +0200
- Cc: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi list, I disagree with the proposed mandatory requirement to use a screen reader as part of WCAG-EM, for several reasons: 1. Inconclusive result from any one SR use 2. Difficulty of separating conformant behaviour from SR repair behaviour 3. Much higher professional prerequisite for conducting evaluations Let me quickly elaborate these three points. 1) Inconclusive result from any one SR use. Even for well known semantic constructs such as forms with legends or tables, SR implementation varies so widely that a well constructed form or table might be OK in one SR and can pose problems in another. What must surely count is whether content has been implemented correctly, not if some AT is able to use it as intended. For most cases, checks exist if semantics have been implemented according to spec or technique that do not require the use of a SR. To take the example of correct pronunciation of words mentioned by several: If a word is pronounced correctly will depend on the inclusion of the word in the SR dictionary and also, the options set by individual users. It will vary a lot across SR makes and versions. (I have met more than one SR user who willingly turned off other languages because he/he opted for speedy delivery over correct choice of language). Finally, leaving it open which SR to use makes results rather inconclusive. I think we cannot and should not mandate, say, the use of NVDA simply because it is free of charge. If anything, it should be the most frequently used SR (often JAWS) which costs quite a bit (see point 3). 2) Difficulty of separating conformant behaviour from SR repair behaviour. SR show a wide range of behaviour towards conformant and badly formatted content, which makes it difficult to rely on any one outcome in a conformance evaluation. Since the web is such a mess on the whole, SR are good in coping with that mess, but to varying degrees. Take a text rendered using Cufon. Jaws will read through it OK, other SRs will stutter, voiceover just reads image - image - image. So how does any one of these results help if we do not intend to cover a range (which I believe is impossible due to time and budget constraints)? 3) Much higher professional prerequisites for conducting evaluations. Requiring the use of a SR without making sure that it is used proficiently will lead to dubious results. SR have shortcuts and modes of operation that help expert users make sense of content. So if SR use becomes a mandatory part of the evaluation there should be a requirement that evaluators know their SR well enough to have meaningful results. This puts the bar a lot higher for folks who look for evaluation guidance but are not prepared for the time and effort to learn how to use a SR adequately. And adequate use will be difficult to define, especially if we do not mandate a SR. Having said all that, there are some points which are tricky to evaluate without a SR - for example, checking that when inserting content via DOM and setting the focus via a script, the SR focus will indeed move to the content inserted. But this touches on the question whether we should rely strongly on any observed actual AT implementation behaviour at any given point in time. If AT does not yet manage to deal adequately with correct code, the alternative would be to check whether implementation is done according to spec and put the burden on AT to catch up. Of course, checking for 'correct code' is difficult without being s scripting expert, it also raises the bar. This is a tricky one, and I am not really sure what's best here. Regards, Detlev On 4 Apr 2012, at 15:57, Michael S Elledge wrote: > Hi Everyone-- > > My preference would be to require the use of a screen reader in > conducting an evaluation, either with or without a person with > disabilities. The option, in my mind, would be having it done by a > person with disabilities. > > With the availability of free screen readers like NVDA, testers > ought to be able to incorporate it in testing without incurring > unreasonable costs. I realize this falls short of the ideal, which > is evaluation by a variety of people with different disabilities, > but we've found it to be critical in our testing for discovering > issues (such as pronunciation or functionality) that would otherwise > be missed. > > I think another AT frequently used by persons with disabilities, > screen enlargers like ZoomText, may be unnecessary in the testing > methodology, so long as other methods are used to review an enlarged > screen. I bring that up for discussion, because others may not agree > with me. > > Best regards, > > Mike > > On 4/2/2012 8:17 PM, Vivienne CONWAY wrote: >> >> HI all >> >> I always use screen readers and am wary when clients say that they >> don't need testing with AT because they don't have any disabled >> users. We never know the extent of employees' limitations - they >> don't have to disclose everything. Also, it often happens that >> someone suffers an injury or illness while in employment only to >> find that they can't use the system now that worked for them >> previously. The old 1 in 5 thought regarding disabilities applies >> to those in employment as to the general public in their use of a >> website. >> >> So... I would suggest that AT (at least the screen reader) be >> strongly encouraged for all website/application testing. >> >> >> Regards >> >> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT >> PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, >> W.A. >> Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd. >> v.conway@ecu.edu.au >> v.conway@webkeyit.com >> Mob: 0415 383 673 >> >> This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the >> individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended >> recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email >> or telephone and destroy the original message. >> ________________________________________ >> From: RichardWarren [richard.warren@userite.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, 3 April 2012 2:28 AM >> To: Kerstin Probiesch >> Cc: 'Eval TF' >> Subject: Re: AW: Using AT for evaluation >> >> Dear Kerstin, >> >> I don't object too much if a "real user" (ie blind person) doesn't >> use a >> screen reader to test the site - the most important thing is that a >> screen >> reader is used. Only a screen reader's audio output would demonstrate >> misspelled words and phone numbers (thanks Denis). You would not test >> without using a visual browser so you should also use an audio >> browser. >> >> For an enclosed environment, such as an Intranet, it could be >> possible to >> exclude testing with certain AT - only IF you know that the >> technology will >> not be required. However this would then mean that the Intranet >> could never >> be used by such a disabled person and could breach employment >> legislation. >> >> Richard >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kerstin Probiesch >> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 3:51 PM >> To: 'Denis Boudreau' ; 'RichardWarren' >> Cc: 'Eval TF' >> Subject: AW: Using AT for evaluation >> >> Hi Richard, Denis, all, >> >> I also think that test with "real" (at least screen reader) users are >> important and that we should strongly recommend it but leave it >> optional. As >> I remember the discussion on our last telco there are two aspects: >> >> - testing with AT and >> - accessibility supported >> >> I think we have an intersection but also other aspects like: are >> technologies like PDF and Flash accessibility supported? Depending >> upon the >> answer it will have probably different consequences for our >> methodology. >> Also different use cases like internet and intranet (especially >> when it >> comes to scripting for JAWS or other screen readers in closed >> environments) >> might have an impact. I'm thinking about if we could find for the >> tests of >> intranets something better than just "optional" without reducing the >> audience of our methodology in whole. >> >> Best >> >> Kerstin >> >> >> Von: Denis Boudreau [mailto:dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com] >> Gesendet: Montag, 2. April 2012 15:40 >> An: RichardWarren >> Cc: Eval TF >> Betreff: Re: Using AT for evaluation >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> I would also like to weigh in with Richard here. All too often, >> screen >> reader testing is considered a luxury that can be done without. I >> am one of >> those who think that an evaluation cannot be considered complete >> unless some >> screen reader testing has been conducted - and ideally, not only by a >> developer, but really by a "real" end user with a visual >> impairment, using >> the assistive technology regularly. The same could be said of other >> end user >> using other tools for other disabilities or limitations, but at the >> very >> least, screen readers. >> >> There are always things that are brought up with AT testing that >> cannot be >> flagged using only a checklist. Some of the things that come to >> mind are >> links used for buttons that really should be coded as <button>, an >> overwhelming number of heading elements in a page (big menus and >> fat footers >> anyone?) or quite obviously, any script that opens up or reveals >> content in >> a page. I recently had big surprises simply with phone number >> formats and >> how screen readers read them. That was another real eye opener (no >> pun >> intended). >> >> This is why I tend to follow this pattern personally: >> >> * testing the web page with a screen reader >> * using an automatic checker for basic problems >> * running manual testing to complete the audit >> >> And whenever I am being offered the budget to do so, calling in a >> visually >> impaired friend or two who can push those tests much further that >> my sighted >> self can push them. >> >> /Denis >> >> >> >> >> On 2012-03-29, at 6:48 PM, RichardWarren wrote: >> >> >> First – sorry I missed the last half of the teleconference – system >> crash. >> >> I wish to add to the discussion on using AT in evaluation. I >> believe it is >> important to use a screen reader at the very least before >> completing an >> evaluation. We do the normal stuff first (it is not fair to ask a >> blind user >> to struggle if we already know that the site is impossible for >> them). But as >> soon as we are happy that a site is reasonably good we always ask >> someone to >> check with their screen reader. Most times their comments re- >> inforce what we >> have found (often with better phrasing <G>). But just occasionally >> they find >> something that our other systems do not pick up. For example the word >> “accesskeys” sound completely Russian unless it is written “access >> keys”, or >> “access-keys”. >> >> I strongly believe that the audio output needs to be checked >> properly. If >> you look at our outline procedure sent to this list on 26 Feb you >> will see >> that we find someone who is new to the site to use a screen reader. >> This >> approach gives us a high level of confidence in our final evaluation. >> >> Richard >> >> Technical Manager >> Website Auditing Limited >> http://www.userite.com >> >> This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient >> you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If >> you have received it in error please return it to the sender via >> reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The >> information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan >> University in general and the University accepts no liability for >> the accuracy of the information provided. >> >> CRICOS IPC 00279B >> >> >> > > -- > Michael S. Elledge > Associate Director > Usability/Accessibility Research and Consulting > Michigan State University > Kellogg Center > 219 S. Harrison Rd Room 93 > East Lansing, MI 48824 > 517-353-8977 -- Detlev Fischer testkreis - das Accessibility-Team von feld.wald.wiese c/o feld.wald.wiese Borselstraße 3-7 (im Hof) 22765 Hamburg Tel +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3 Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84 Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5 http://www.testkreis.de Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 15:33:58 UTC