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

Re: Testing web page accessibility by phone

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 08:03:12 -0400
To: Jerry Weichbrodt <gerald.g.weichbrodt@ived.gm.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <007101c20708$cef487a0$91e03244@DAVIDPOEHLMAN>

interesting point Jerry!

This harkens back to my point of "vallidation" with which I was putting
forward the crazy notion that doing it right to begin with makes a huge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Weichbrodt" <gerald.g.weichbrodt@ived.gm.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: Testing web page accessibility by phone

I wonder how much of this depends on the user agent, by which I mean the
combination of the web browser and screen reader.  As a specific
ever since JAWS for Windows discovered how to grab headings (*real*
with numbers, not just over-sized type that web designers like to
are headings) and present them in a list with the ability to move
immediately to a heading, I have suddenly become very enthusiastic about
proper use of headings to mark off important section divisions in a web
page.  Prior to the heading support, I have to confess that headings
do much for me because they were essentially indistinguishable from
stuff on the page.  It makes a big difference, to me anyway, if you can
some sort of hierarchical view of a web page rather than just the
never-ending linear version.

In summary, how a web page "stacks up" may be surprisingly dependent on
browser/screen reader used to view it.  Just my two cents, and hopefully
too far off the mark.


----- Original Message -----
From: "phoenixl" <phoenixl@sonic.net>
To: <phoenixl@sonic.net>; <poehlman1@comcast.net>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: Testing web page accessibility by phone

> Hi,
> First, the goal isn't necessarily validation but looking at
> accessibility.  Second, different people have different
> of what an accessible web page is to blind people.  For example, look
> the various standards that have been or are being developed.
> The methodology being used was to get subjective experience of various
> blind subjects.  Rather than taking the perspective that the web pages
> are accessible because they meet some set of standards, we focused on
> whether the blind subjects themselves experienced the web pages as
> accessible.  The feedback that was given was interesting and helpful.
> Using a comparison strategy can also be helpful, but not always
> necessary for getting useful information.  The issue of skill is
> something to consider.  A question though is how much is it a blind
> person's responsibility to have a certain skill level and how much is
> the web page's responsibility not to have high expectations for skill
> level?
> The Hisoftware person I talked with left me with the impression that
> software doesn't have mechanisms for measuring such things as how long
> does it take for the blind subject to understand a web page or
> determining how accurately the blind subject understands the web page.
> The software basically is checking syntax against a specified set of
> standards rather than evaluating the experience of the subjects.
> Rather than discussing the questions, it might be interesting first to
> use them when working with a variety of blind subjects.  However, a
> question to ask is if a sighted person can understand the purpose of a
> web page in let's say 15 seconds and it often takes a blind person 2
> minutes to understand the same web page, is that web page accessible?
> Scott
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 08:04:17 UTC

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