If you are going with Windows software accessibility only, you should consider
going back to even older versions of JAWS and Window Eyes.  Maybe Window Eyes
3.0 or 3.1 and JAWS 2.4 or something like that.  I am not a JFW user, not
ever.  There are a lot of people who do not qualify for new money to purchase
new computer systems with new voice output software as an example.  Also,
please do not forget the other software required for others with other
types of
disabilities.  Many people have to use the old stuff.

At 02:21 PM 11/19/02 , you wrote:

>
> 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]>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]>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