Re: Time and Accessibility (RE: was Testing web page accessibility by

on the off topic of auditory signals, such testing had been done and was
ignored till a study of their crossing technique found it flawed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "phoenixl" <phoenixl@sonic.net>
To: <phoenixl@sonic.net>; <poehlman1@comcast.net>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Time and Accessibility (RE: was Testing web page
accessibility by



Hi,

An interesting question.  Now as near as I understand, the various
companies mentioned have not done much testing about how fast blind
people use web pages compared to sighted people.

A hard question that people often avoid is whether the rate of increase
of capability is the best that could be achieved or could it be better?
Is this an question that needs to be answered technologically?

When the president of NFB recently spoke on the Berkeley campus, he made
an interesting comment.  Until recently, the NFB has been totally
opposed to auditory signals at intersections.  At the presentation, he
indicated that they now believe that use of auditory signals should be
evaluated on a case by case basis.  It had me wondering how often
philosophical
beliefs impede the evaluation of technology.  For example, suppose they
had set up a series of users tests of people using auditory signals at
intersections rather than waiting for random experience with the
technology.  They may have reached a better understanding of the
benefits
of auditory signals at intersecions sooner.

Scott

> so what are gw micro and freedomscientific and dolfin and others doing
> spinning their wheels then?  Why is it that our capability grows with
> each new release?  This is not a blind thing.

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 12:18:32 UTC