- From: Elizabeth Linnetz <elizabeth.linnetz@theprimacy.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:59:15 +0000
- To: Tobias Bengfort <tobias.bengfort@posteo.de>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Tobias and Poornima, We've seen through our own testing that we find issues on real devices that don't show up on browserstack. For this reason, we only use browserstack in a pinch- if the client requires testing on a device we can't get, for example. For the majority of our qa testing - both functionality and layout, as well as all of our accessibility testing, we use real devices. Beth _ primacy Elizabeth.Linnetz@theprimacy.com quality assurance analyst 860.404.3355 hartford / nyc / boston / west palm for what’s next -----Original Message----- From: Tobias Bengfort [mailto:tobias.bengfort@posteo.de] Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 2:43 PM To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: Re: Accessibility testing on device simulators Hi Poornima, On 04/12/17 16:13, Subramanian, Poornima (PCL) wrote: > 2. Any experience with "browse stack" simulator? As far as I know, browserstack is not a simulator. Instead, it gives you access to real browsers on VMs via a web interface. So far, they do not support screen readers. According to their website, they include OS/browser combinations based on market share[1]. Sound is already available[2]. I think it would be totally possible for them to include screen readers in their services. Maybe they have just never thought of it. I must admit that I have never thought of it either. But having a service that gives me access to all kinds of OS/Browser/AT combinations would actually be fantastic. If someone from browserstack is reading this: Please make this reality! tobias [1]: https://www.browserstack.com/question/479 [2]: https://www.browserstack.com/question/626
Received on Monday, 4 December 2017 19:59:44 UTC