W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: accessibility supported questions

From: <Accessys@smart.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:56:49 -0500 (EST)
To: Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0903301854520.10125@fzneg.arg>

would be interested in how these forms function with the open source
screen readers such as EMACspeak or Orca

Bob



On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Roger Hudson wrote:

> A highly experienced screen reader user and I recently reviewed a couple of
> PDF forms for compliance with WCAG 2. We started with the assumption that
> Adobe Reader 9.0 and Acrobat 8.1.2 are Accessibility Supported and then
> looked to see how well we could use the forms with JAWS 9.0 and Window Eyes
> 7.01.
>
>
>
> The way these screen readers handled the forms threw up some interesting
> issues or questions.
>
>
>
> WCAG 2 contains "testable" Success Criteria, which are normative, and there
> is a general belief that all testers will obtain the same or very similar
> results for the different Criteria. However we found considerable
> inconsistencies in the way some components of the forms behaved. For
> example, sometimes a particular button or checkbox would be reported and
> sometimes the same button/checkbox would be ignored. And often the status of
> buttons/checkboxes would not be correctly reported. In cases of inconsistent
> or unreliable performance what yardstick do you use to determine compliance?
>
>
>
>
> And then, there is the problem of ensuring the 'testable' results are
> repeatable. If something does not perform consistently, I might test it and
> experience no problems but the next person might not be so lucky.
>
>
>
> When it comes to determining Accessibility Supported technologies, who or
> how do we decide which version of a technology should we use as the
> reference point?
>
>
>
> And, what happens when there are competing determinations about which
> technologies and technology versions should be deemed supported? This could
> be within a jurisdiction and across jurisdictions.
>
>
>
> More information is available at
> http://www.dingoaccess.com/accessibility/accessibility-supported/
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Roger Hudson
>
> Web Usability
>
> Ph: 02 9568 1535
>
> Mb: 0405 320 014
>
> Email:  <mailto:rhudson@usability.com.au> rhudson@usability.com.au
>
> Web:  <http://www.usability.com.au/> www.usability.com.au
>
> Blog: www.dingoaccess.com
>
>
>
> In times of greed when justice is hard to find, perhaps a little magic is
> required: A story of redemptive justice for bleak sub-prime times.
>
> Freezer:  <http://www.dingoaccess.com/freezer/>
> http://www.dingoaccess.com/freezer/
>
>
>
>

-
end
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
occasionally a true patriot must defend his country from its' government
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"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/MIME 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 Monday, 30 March 2009 23:57:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:31 GMT