- From: Accessys@smart.net <accessys@smart.net>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:56:49 -0500 (EST)
- To: Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>
- cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
would be interested in how these forms function with the open source screen readers such as EMACspeak or Orca Bob On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Roger Hudson wrote: > A highly experienced screen reader user and I recently reviewed a couple of > PDF forms for compliance with WCAG 2. We started with the assumption that > Adobe Reader 9.0 and Acrobat 8.1.2 are Accessibility Supported and then > looked to see how well we could use the forms with JAWS 9.0 and Window Eyes > 7.01. > > > > The way these screen readers handled the forms threw up some interesting > issues or questions. > > > > WCAG 2 contains "testable" Success Criteria, which are normative, and there > is a general belief that all testers will obtain the same or very similar > results for the different Criteria. However we found considerable > inconsistencies in the way some components of the forms behaved. For > example, sometimes a particular button or checkbox would be reported and > sometimes the same button/checkbox would be ignored. And often the status of > buttons/checkboxes would not be correctly reported. In cases of inconsistent > or unreliable performance what yardstick do you use to determine compliance? > > > > > And then, there is the problem of ensuring the 'testable' results are > repeatable. If something does not perform consistently, I might test it and > experience no problems but the next person might not be so lucky. > > > > When it comes to determining Accessibility Supported technologies, who or > how do we decide which version of a technology should we use as the > reference point? > > > > And, what happens when there are competing determinations about which > technologies and technology versions should be deemed supported? This could > be within a jurisdiction and across jurisdictions. > > > > More information is available at > http://www.dingoaccess.com/accessibility/accessibility-supported/ > > > > Thanks > > > > Roger Hudson > > Web Usability > > Ph: 02 9568 1535 > > Mb: 0405 320 014 > > Email: <mailto:rhudson@usability.com.au> rhudson@usability.com.au > > Web: <http://www.usability.com.au/> www.usability.com.au > > Blog: www.dingoaccess.com > > > > In times of greed when justice is hard to find, perhaps a little magic is > required: A story of redemptive justice for bleak sub-prime times. > > Freezer: <http://www.dingoaccess.com/freezer/> > http://www.dingoaccess.com/freezer/ > > > > - end ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ occasionally a true patriot must defend his country from its' government +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "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/MIME 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 Monday, 30 March 2009 23:57:25 UTC