W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: What would a screen reader make of this?

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:40:48 -0400
Message-ID: <000a01c0f4e8$628a6180$2cf60141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>
To: "Mark Magennis" <mark@frontend.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
we may as well stop this before it gets realy bogged down.  The
assumption of functionality to expect from a screen reader is going at
it from the rong direction.  The question is actually, how can a site
bedesigned or delivered such that it does not matterly as nearly as
possible what you use but that it is accessible as nearly as possible.
this is why wcag came into being and on the other sides of the issue, we
have the user agent accessibility guidelines and the authoring tool
accessibility guidelines and some other tools that are available or will
soon be available.  Other problems with the email below are addressed
here as well.  I would not make a claim that a 4x browser and an 800x600
screen resolution are reasonable targets but again, this is addressed
above.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Magennis" <mark@frontend.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:58 AM
Subject: RE: What would a screen reader make of this?


This raises a sticky issue for designers. What screen reader do you
design
for, and is there a lowest reasonable level of screen reader
functionality
you can expect you user to have?

It seems that most designers now accept that it is reasonable to expect
sighted users to have at least version 4 of Internet Explorer or
Netscape
and at least 800 by 600 screen resolution. Is there some lowest level of
screen reader capability that is reasonable to expect and, if so, is
there
an actual make and version of screen reader that encapsulates this
level?

Also, are there any statistics available, or even best guesses, about
the
proportion of users who have each make and version of screen reader?

Thanks,

Mark Magennis
Head of Usability, Frontend

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of David Poehlman
> Sent: 14 June 2001 14:16
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; Marjolein Katsma
> Subject: Re: What would a screen reader make of this?
>
>
> and the screen readers are constantly changing.  There are reviews of
> screen readers out there from afb and acb radio and others.  Perhaps
it
> might help to gather those resources together in a web page and keep
it
> up to date if it has not been done already.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marjolein Katsma" <access@javawoman.com>
> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:15 AM
> Subject: RE: What would a screen reader make of this?
>
>
> Yes, I agree. While most screen reader programs have (free,
session-time
> limited) versions you can use for testing, it's a steep learning
curve.
> (And the reboot time to contuinue doesn't help if you can't afford the
> expense of the full package.)
>
> A determined developer can maybe learn one - but testing with all
(even
> the most-used) is just not feasible, unless you're a large company
with
> a testlab and a dedicated person (wo)manning the lab.
>
> Of course that makes a list such as this valuable - but then the
> question becomes: how many developers know about already, and how many
> would come here to ask questions?
>
> At 20:39 2001-06-13 -0400, Jim Tobias wrote:
> >Hi All,
> >
> >Marjolein's queston reminds me of a good idea a corporate
> >type once asked me.  Why isn't there a real-time screen reader
> >emulator site?  That is, a site like Bobby wherein one could
> >enter a URI and hear how it would sound through one or more screen
> >readers with typical settings.  The learning curve of screen
> >readers is holding back accessible web design.
> >
> >Jim Tobias
>
> Marjolein Katsma
> HomeSite Help - http://hshelp.com/
> Bookstore for Webmasters - http://hshelp.com/bookstore/bookstore.html
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 11:40:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:55 GMT