W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: JavaScript, DOM, & Jaws

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:14:56 +0100
To: "Colin Lieberman" <clieberman@dralegal.org>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.sztwu6vrwxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:54:47 +0100, Colin Lieberman  
<clieberman@dralegal.org> wrote:

>> This isn't necessarily true anymore.  JAWS and Window-Eyes, for example,
>> do pretty well with regard to javascript, and are getting better all the
>> time.
> just made a quick test to try with my version of JAWS 5.0. The results
> However, at $1500 per license, I don't think it's possible to assume that
> everybody is going to have the most current version.
> Thoughts?

Yeah, this is still how it goes. As Andrew said they are getting better  
(it used to be basically horrendous, now it is just frustratingly bad, to  
work with javascript enabled). There is still a way to go, and as you say,  
while the most expensive screen readers are probably the market leaders  
due to the particlarities involved, assuming that everyone uses that is  
just plain wrong.

However I suspect (it is quite hard to tell) that most people who disable  
javascript are not using screen readers.

One thing you should definitely insist on is that any ECMAscript that gets  
used has been extensively tested both for validity and real-world  
implementation. Although things like scripting and DOM are getting a lot  
better (even IE is managing to make progress) it is still a horrid mess,  
and relying on it is tricky. You get "most of the people", but you clearly  
miss out on people who have a well-defined right to access in many  



Charles McCathieNevile                     chaals@opera.com
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
      Peek into the kitchen: http://snapshot.opera.com/
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 17:15:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:26 UTC