W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: not jaws, just inaccessible:Fw: Inaccessible Web sites

From: Jerry Weichbrodt <gerald.g.weichbrodt@ived.gm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:41:00 -0400
Message-ID: <010001c2035a$eefd1aa0$1c89ac82@GMTC.MPG.GM.COM>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Agreed.  These sites do have serious accessibility problems.  Unfortunately,
the fact that certain screen readers cope with them as well as they do means
that these sites may not be the best options for demonstrating the
consequences of poor coding if the television documentary happens to use
these certain screen readers.

http://www.xo.com/ has some pretty nasty imagemaps that leave me clueless
with JAWS.  The American Airlines site at http://www.aa.com/ is another.
The Observer and Eccentric newspapers at http://observerandeccentric.com/
also aren't so swift.


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foliot - bytown internet" <foliot@bytowninternet.com>
To: "Jerry Weichbrodt" <gerald.g.weichbrodt@ived.gm.com>;
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: not jaws, just inaccessible:Fw: Inaccessible Web sites

> > So, as a JAWS user, I don't think WindowEyes has it over JAWS here, but,
> > even though both screen readers deal as well as they do with these
> > it's only because of the tricks in the screen readers, and other
> > combinations of browser and technology would probably fall on
> > their faces at
> > these sites.
> >
> Ergo, inaccessible.  Requiring "user agents" to overcome shortcomings in
> HTML we give them is an un-reasonable expectation.  The fact that JAWS
> and/or WindowEyes have been designed to accommodate crummy coding
> is a benefit to some users, but does not in any way "forgive" the
> inaccessible development of these sites.
> Just my $0.02
> JF
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 15:39:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:19 UTC