- From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:32:48 -0400 (EDT)
- To: bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com>
- cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
speaking personally, My understanding is that wacg principles are to be browser agnostic, and are rooted in interaction not tool. As someone experiencing a disability that while mandating a screen reader, also makes the software speech included in tools like jaws physically harmful, it is frustrating being told by well meaning companies who themselves were told that Jaws testing was suitable, that I need to fit their definition of disability to get access..even if doing so could result in my hospitalization. I respect your desire to make your job easier, but given no single person's tools apply to another person's body, my own included, I would truly appreciate it if the practice of one tool fits all testing stopped. You are teaching the companies for which you work how to discriminate, even if not especially when you claim a majority using your tools. After all, using majority as a measure still fortifies discrimination on large scales world wide. Speaking personally, of course. Karen On Mon, 5 Jul 2021, bryan rasmussen wrote: > Hi, > > This might be slightly off for the list, but don't know where else to > ask that would be good. So I am working on a project for an online > education platform that wants to move into the U.S market. > > The platform would like to limit testing at least part of the > development process to nvda and voiceover, to decrease costs / > workload, I personally would like to test with -Jaws all the time but > often one can't for various reasons. So does anyone have a pattern for > how they do periodic testing with Jaws in such a way as to decrease > workload). And more importantly if anyone knows of any organizational > / governmental regulations requiring testing with Jaws that would > affect the educational market in the U.S? > > Thanks, > Bryan Rasmussen > >
Received on Monday, 5 July 2021 21:33:32 UTC