Hello,
I'm following up on the thread:
Re: Fw: Call for review: Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility
but I'm starting a new thread, to expore the way that the accessibility
guidelines can allow features that lock people into particular
technology. I believe that JavaScript is such a feature.
There was a discussion some time ago about JavaScript, and Jim Thatcher,
author of HPR (Home Page Reader) said that it could handle JavaScript.
I remember wondering how HPR does it, but have since learned that
HPR sits inside Internet Explorer, so presumably it uses IE's Javascript
capability. For access technology not based on a conventional browser,
JavaScript is extremely problematical. By allowing it in the guidelines,
WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative) is locking people into using a certain
type of access technology, based on proprietory products. On the other
hand, if people want to use a direct text reading approach, via Lynx
or using WordAloud for example, they cannot access sites that rely
on JavaScript to work. The direct reading approach is generally
much simpler for people with a visual impairment, as they are not
"seeing through a glass darkly", i.e. they don't have to learn how
to use a graphically-oriented browser, and at the same time how to
use a screen reader that interprets the image that the browser has
thrown up on the screen. You can see how simple the direct reading
approach can be by trying a free evaluation copy of WordAloud,
www.wordaloud.co.uk. The product is currently being offered at
$44.95 for personal use. BTW, it competes with screen magnifier as well
as screen readers, and uses a word-at-a-time display for rapid reading.
And because it's written in Java, it's not tied to Windows.
But there's no way it could handle JavaScript (which has nothing to
do with Java). Hence my concern about allowing JavaScript in the
accessibility guidelines. JavaScript locks out this new, user-friendly
and affordable technology.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
--
In message <[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask] writes:
>I have no datta on your first question. I will be free form though and
>answer this way. when testing for accessibility via the web content
>accessibility guidelines, it is important to take all functional
>limitations into consideration...
[snip]
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Rosemary Ernst" <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:23 AM
>>Subject: Re: Fw: Call for review: Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility
>>
>>This WAI document suggests the use of IBM's Home Page Reader to as a
>>voice browser to use for testing. Has anyone used this product?
>>How does it compare to JAWS or Window Eyes?
>>
>>Rosemary Ernst
>>Web Developer
--
Access the word, access the world! -- Try our WordAloud software!!
John Nissen, Cloudworld Ltd., Chiswick, London, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 845 458 3944 (local rate in the UK)
Fax: +44 (0) 20 8742 8715
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://www.cloudworld.co.uk and http://www.wordaloud.co.uk
|
