- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 03:35:31 +0200
- To: "Alexander, Dan" <Dan.Alexander@mdx.com>
- CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Screen readers are like browsers - there is probably a dominant one at any given time, but it can change pretty fast. In addition, if you code accoding to the quirks of product A, you are betting that you don't need other clients than users of product A, and that you will learn the new quirks when there is a new version. And new versions come out every month or so for some screen reader or other - much like browsers. Testing for screen reader (and browser) compatibility is a good idea after you have ensured that you are working to standards, so that any system you haven't tested but which works better according to the agreed standards will still work for you. It's one thing to say that your site isn't easy to use with Braillesurf 1.0 because it is not capable of recognising modern standards. It is another to say that you can't actually work with standards-compliant sytems because you only coded for (the obsolete browsers) IE 5.5 and Netscape 4.77. I would suggest testing with as many screen readers as you can afford, both with very skilled users (who can tell you a lot about how professionals use a screen reader), and with beginners (presumably like you and certainly like me) who can show what happens when a new user starts up for the first time. If that is too much, I would suggest making sure that you are meeting standards and not breaking anything for basic users. just two cents worth Charles McCN Alexander, Dan wrote: >I've noticed a lot of differences between screen readers in the way they >read the content. This makes for a particularly troublesome problem in >testing because, not only are we testing for browser compatability but also >screen reader compatability. I was wondering if there has been any market >research done as to which screen reader is the most commonly used? Which is >the best to test on? > >I would appreciate any help you can provide. > >Dan Alexander > > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 21:36:29 UTC