Re: SSB Technologies and Java Accessibility

Hi All,

I want to make certain that people didn't misconstrue my messages in asking 
if anyone had gotten the SSB programs to work with screen readers.  I 
certainly didn't mean anything negative about the company or their efforts.

Working with a sighted assistant I did explore their software and think it 
has excellent potential to help make the web a more accessible 
environment.  My inquiries were more to see if anyone had discovered a 
trick to get things working with screen readers that I hadn't found.

Kelly



At 11:49 AM 10/5/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Kelly-
>
>Pursuant to Dave's earlier e-mail to the list, here is a detailed technical
>description of the problem.  The problems with the installer revolve around
>ZeroG, which has yet to implement the appropriate APIs, and package the
>necessary libraries with their software.
>
>External to that, Java itself has some versioning latencies revolving around
>the Access Bridge, which affects all applications written in Java.
>Specifically the defacto Java Runtime Environment currently in use is
>version 1.3.  However the Java access bridge currently only works with
>version 1.2.2 (or 1.1.8) of the Java Runtime Environment.  As such the
>ability of the industry to produce accessible Java applications depends on
>Sun, and their ability to produce the new version of the Java access bridge.
>This should not be interperted as an attack on Sun: they have taken a
>leadership role in accessibility.  However, realistically we should all be
>aware of the time lapse between the newest technology and accessible
>versions thereof.
>
>Our programs do fully implement the Java Accessibility API and provide for
>full keyboard control of the programs.  Fundamental in our production of
>software is the ability to make our applications accessible to all users.
>As such while there are some external constraints, know that our software's
>accessibility is of paramount importance to us.  It is something we have
>worked hard on and will continue to do so in the future.
>
>TimS

Received on Thursday, 5 October 2000 17:08:38 UTC