Re: Screen readers - usage stats?

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Ian Anderson wrote:

>
> > 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.
>
> 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

don't forget the non proprietary open source screen readers such as
emacspeak

> Perhaps in a few years the manufacturers of screen readers will get their
> act together, but in the meantime the reality is that someone will always
> get a poorer experience, and web designers are back to juggling the numbers
> again to decide which way to jump for each design choice.

and proprietary readers will each be trying to lockout each other and all
ignore the open source movment

> Anyone else wrestled with screen reader rendering differences, and have any
> tips?

have at least one ALL text fall back version (CSS) that will run on LYNX
thus at least all screen readers will get full content

Bob

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 Wednesday, 14 April 2004 20:06:23 UTC