W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Screen readers - usage stats?

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Cc: Ian Anderson <lists@zstudio.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0404150925480.25355@smart.net>

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Nick Kew wrote:

you have put that so much more concisely than I did, thanks for the
clarification.   to add only that disability can also be old equipment and
slow/limited access


> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Ian Anderson wrote:
> [rant follows - not directed at you, but at some of the ideas you're
> wrestling with]
> > > What compelling reason could there be to have stats of this type?  I can
> > > think of some that have nothing to do with the web but none that do.
> Screenreaders are by definition a tiny market share at most sites.
> If that is a reason not to care about them, then let's forget all
> about accessibility.
> I know that's not what you meant, but it's the same underlying argument.
> > I'd be interested to see information on screen reader market share. I'm
> > consulting with a UK Internet bank presently, and we are testing in
> > Window-Eyes 4.5, JAWS 5.0, JAWS 4.5 and IBM HomePage Reader 3.0. You get
> > problems with the default settings in each configuration, and slightly
> > different HTML code is required to make site features work well in each one.
> Browser-specific authoring is the Root Of All Evil on the Web.
> Seriously, that's a lot like authoring for "both browsers".  By doing
> that you are contributing to
>   * lock-out (of people with different equipment)
>   * lock-in (of people with supported equipment, all of which is
>     proprietary)
> Never limit your support to users of expensive equipment - you are
> penalising them the cost of it.
> Never limit your support to users of proprietary equipment - you are
> leaving them hostage to vendors.
> Above all, don't make hostages to Windows.  Even if you discount the
> fact that it's grossly overpriced and requires new and expensive hardware
> every few years, you're forcing users to expose themselves to the
> World of Viruses.
> > Often there are conflicts, where the code that works well in JAWS causes a
> > rendering issue in Window-Eyes, or vice versa.
> If there are legitimate reasons to present things differently, you should
> do so by empowering your users to choose, not by second-guessing their
> needs.  The kind of user-options offered by mod_accessibility do this,
> and if you think its output can be tailored for optimal presentation
> with particular screenreaders, I'm listening.

CONFIGURE YOUR E-MAIL TO SEND TEXT ONLY, see http://expita.com/nomime.html

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety",    Benjamin Franklin
-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 09:51:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:28 UTC