I am with David on this one:  all of it.  I would also add that I havve
been using Lynx for MS-DOS which should be able to work with the web sites.
 I will be losing the MS-DOS in the future when the more stable version of
Free DOS is completed.  Free DOS is multitasking like the old combo of
MS-DOS and Quarterdec's multitasking DOS software.

At 02:30 PM 11/19/02 , you wrote:
>and let's not forget the mac and linux platforms.  they may not have
>been a force to reckon with in the past but they are now and growing.
>
>You'll also want to have the new portables.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Terri Hedgpeth" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 3:21 PM
>Subject: Re: Web accessibility testing laboratory
>
>
>I think you should be able to test the site with not only JFW and Window
>Eyes, but you should test it with previous versions of these software
>packages. For example JFW 3.7 and up. You might also include Dolphin if
>it
>has a fairly wide spread consumer base. Remember this is what web
>designers
>do with different browsers (i.e., Netscape and Internet Explorer). The
>pains
>a web designer goes through trying to get a website to work and display
>in
>an effective and attractive manner are great.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Denis Anson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 12:19 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Web accessibility testing laboratory
>
>
>       Alan,
>
>       This touches on one of the common complaints of accessibility in
>general:  is it enough to be accessible to *some* set of tools,  or
>should you be accessible to a reasonable range to tools.
>       For example, suppose that I design a website which is tailored to
>the needs of a blind person who uses JAWS.  And suppose that some of the
>features that I design for conflict with Window-Eyes. Is my site
>accessible?
>       It is accessible to my design audience, but not to the larger
>population who may use other accessibility tools.
>
>       With that in mind, I'd try to use accessibility standards rather
>than any specific hardware or software tools. For example,  if a web
>site meets all A and AA priorities of the W3C guidelines for web
>content,  it should be considered accessible,  even if it doesn't work
>with *all* tools for accessibility.
>
>       Denis Anson, MS, OTR
>       Computer Access Specialist
>       College Misericordia
>       301 Lake St.
>       Dallas, PA 18612
>       email: [log in to unmask]
>       Phone: 570-674-6413
>
>
>       > -----Original Message-----
>       > From: * EASI: Equal Access to Software & Information
>       > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Cantor
>       > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 1:50 PM
>       > To: [log in to unmask]
>       > Subject: Web accessibility testing laboratory
>       >
>       > Hello EASI Colleagues,
>       >
>       > If you were setting up a web testing accessibility laboratory,
>what
>       > hardware and software would you get?
>       >
>       > Alan
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       > Alan Cantor
>       > Project Manager
>       > Strategic e-Government Implementation
>       > e-Government, OCCS
>       > 416-212-1152
>       > [log in to unmask]
>
---
Ross Eadie
Voice:  (204) 339-5287