Re: Question about proper use of screen readers in 508 testing

Hi Mike, and to a degree David.
Mike, I personally am one of those who believe  you are testing to a 
standard, not a tool.
Recently I discovered  a resource that echos my opinion, called the a11y 
project.
www.a11yproject.com
They discuss a myth that access  only means blind people, outlining the 
various other populations who are equally entitled to websites working 
with their  adaptive tools.
Speaking personally I crowed a  finding this in writing because I often 
run into examples of David's standards, if I expect a site to work I have 
to be a Jaws user, even if in my personal case that would do me   rather 
allot of physical harm.
I experience an auditory processing condition, caused by a slight stroke 
during an eye surgery, in addition to sight loss.  Medically for me most 
software generated  speech, like that in Jaws, stimulates my brain's 
dizzy centres.  I have no problem with hardware speech, which I  can say 
use in Linux, and remain hopeful that I may find an apple solution once I 
can  get my dream macbook pro.
However, according to David if I sought employment with the state of 
Minnesota, I am going to be required to use jaws?  Not the best adaptive 
tool combination for me to do the job,  but Jaws?
Speaking personally, testing to a single tool is the best way to Slam a 
door on accessibility, because you are, no matter how well intended, 
perpetuating the stereotype that everyone  sharing a label is the same. 
Not to mention the idea that only blind people using a specific tool as 
you define it, are deserving of site access.
and if the site in question serves the general public?  You are going to 
say our site is fine, because it works for jaws users?
David,  given how individualized the human experience is, who writes the 
definition of widest possible  number of people?
As for the button button issue,  speaking personally, I come across that 
allot, and never give it a thought.  I am far more concerned if the button 
works from the keyboard, and  many times, it is a scripted one.
Given how many populations  using tools other than screen readers might be 
impacted, the answer is and always should be standard, tested in many ways 
using   many testing methods supporting browser agnostic rules...speaking 
personally of course.
Karen




On Thu, 23 Jul 2020, Mike Cleary wrote:

> Hello,
> I'm new to the discussion list and have a question about how much reliance
> should be accorded to screen readers like JAWS when reporting accessibility
> issues.
>
> We have an internal testing team that uses JAWS for 508 testing. They are
> reporting accessibility issues in cases where JAWS reads all the content on
> screen, but does not recognize certain expand/collapse widgets as clickable
> links.
>
> In a different case, they have filed a "critical" bug in cases where a
> button is read as "button button." Using the button is no problem; their
> argument is that the duplicate listing is potentially confusing. I say
> that's a usability problem, not an accessibility issue and thus not
> critical.
>
> My concern is that the testers are testing to the tool, not to
> accessibility guidelines. Am I mistaken? Is there any guidance on how much
> to rely upon a tool? Is there anything in WCAG 2.0 that speaks to this
> issue?
>
> Mike
>
> Scrum Master
> GrantSolutions.gov
>

Received on Thursday, 23 July 2020 21:53:09 UTC