- 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
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 countries. cheers Chaals -- 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