----- Forwarded Message Follows -----

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:58:46 -0800 (PST)
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Highlights of CSUN Presentation

Dear CTIB Member:

We want to thank the more than 100 people who answered our request
for an update on Windows screen reader
use.  Our presentation at the CSUN Technology and People with
disabilities conference went very well.  Below are
the parts of our presentation that were not in the published screen
reaer reviews.

We start with a count of how many CTIB members use each screen
reader.  Then we list some misconceptions
people have about how to buy a Windows screen reader.  Next you
will find the steps we suggest for choosing a
screen reader.  Then comes the good stuff--the performance ratings
for the programs we tested and our conclusions.

We hope you find this information useful, and that it helps you in
purchasing your next screen reader.

Jay Leventhal and Crista Earl
National Technology Program
American Foundation for the Blind






STATISTICS ON WINDOWS SCREEN READER USE IN THE CTIB

Total CTIB Members: 1950
Windows Screen Reader Users: 423

JAWS for Windows: 230
JAWS for Windows only: 159 69% of all JFW users

Window-Eyes: 110
Window-Eyes only: 61 55%

WinVision: 60
WinVision Only: 35 58%

ASAW: 46
ASAW only: 21 45%

outSPOKEN for Windows: 42
outSPOKEN for Windows only: 20 48%

ScreenPower for Windows: 40
ScreenPower only: 19 48%

Window Bridge: 33
Window Bridge only: 12 36%

Total using only one screen reader: 327 77%
96 people use more than one screen reader.






MISCONCEPTIONS THAT LEAD PEOPLE TO MAKE BAD SCREEN READER CHOICES.

1.  The choice of a screen reader is a matter of personal
preference.
      Answer: All screen readers do not perform equally well. There
are wide variations in the way they perform
      with particular applications.

2.  The difference between one screen reader and another is the way
in which it gives you access to the information
on the screen; i.e. the command structure.
      Answer: Although the screen readers are differentiated by
command structure, it is not the most important
factor in choosing a screen reader.

3.  This screen reader worked well in a demonstration with WordPad,
so I know it will work well for all the
applications I need to use.
      Answer: One screen reader may work very well with one
application and badly with another.  The screen
      reader and application must be considered together.

5.  I want my Windows screen reader to have all the same commands
I had in my DOS screen reader.
      Answer: Windows is not DOS.  Some of the screen-reading
concepts carry over from one to another, but
      users must be prepared to learn a new way of doing things
when switching from DOS to Windows.

6.  I Don't want to take my hands off the home row when I work in
Windows.
      Answer: It may be more efficient to keep the hands on the
home row, but Windows applications and
      Windows screen readers have far to many commands to make this
practical.

7.  This screen reader costs a lot more, so I know it's better./you
get what you pay for.
      Answer: We found no correlation between cost and performance.






STEPS FOR SELECTING A SCREEN READER
Step 1:
Get and review all the information the manufacturers and vendors
can provide on their products.

Step 2
Consider the accessibility features you must absolutely have.
The manual in a particular language?
Support for a particular Braille display?
Support for a particular synthesizer?
Compatibility with other assistive technology such as screen
magnification?

Step 3:
What applications will you be using with the screen reader you
choose?
Word? WordPerfect? A 3270 emulator?
proprietary application?

Step 4:
Re-evaluate your decision from step 2.  Do you still feel as
strongly about your needs in that area?  Consider the
possibility of having two screen readers. 23 percent of Windows
screen reader users in the CTIB have more than
one screen reader.

Step 5
Consider the general profiles of the screen readers.  Which work
the way you like to work.






RATINGS CHART FOR WINDOWS-95 BASED SCREEN READERS EVALUATED IN
AFB'S PRODUCT
EVALUATIONS LAB

Testing was performed between July 1997 and February 1998. Each
program was tested on a Pentium 166 with 32
MB of memory, using a DECtalk PC synthesizer.

Ratings Scale
0. No access; The equivalent of a sighted person with no mouse and
the monitor turned off.
1. Little access; the program gives users an idea of what is going
on but little opportunity to function well.
2. Less than adequate access with much room for improvement.
3. Good access but a definite need for improvement.
4. Very good access, with minor improvements expected in the
future.
5. Access as good as a sighted person has with a mouse and a
monitor.

Programs Tested:
ASAW 1.3.3, MicroTalk Software
JAWS for Windows 2.00.29, Henter-Joyce, Inc.
ScreenPower for Windows 2.0, TeleSensory corp.
Window Bridge 2.40/2.41, Syntha-Voice computers, Inc.
Window-Eyes 2.0, GW Micro, Inc.
WinVision 4.1, Artic Technologies International

Installation and documentation
Window-Eyes 5
ASAW 4
JAWS for Windows 4
WinVision 4
ScreenPower for Windows 3
Window Bridge 3

Word 97
Window Bridge 3.5
JAWS for Windows 3
WinVision 3
ScreenPower for Windows 2
Window-Eyes 2
ASAW 1

WordPerfect 6.1 and 8.0
JAWS for Windows 4
Window-Eyes 4
WinVision WP 6.1: 3.5; WP 8.0: 2
Window Bridge 3
ASAW 2
ScreenPower for Windows 1

Internet Explorer 3.02
JAWS for Windows 4
Window-Eyes 4
WinVision 4
Window Bridge 3
ASAW 2.5
ScreenPower for Windows 2

Netscape Navigator Gold 3.01
Window-Eyes 4
JAWS for Windows 3
Window Bridge 3
WinVision 2.5
ASAW 1.5
ScreenPower for Windows 1





CONCLUSIONS

We placed the screen readers tested into three categories:  The top
group performed the best with the applications
we tested but still need improvement.  It should be pointed out
that these two products have both had major
upgrades since we tested them.  The middle group performed well,
but needed improvement, and the bottom group
included screen readers that consistently performed poorly in our
tests.

Top group
JFW offers highly focused, quality access to Windows applications.
It is designed for the user who does not want
to learn a lot of speech commands.
      JFW is dependent on its macros/scripts. Although these add
very efficient speech, writing them is beyond
the ability of most users.  It would be useful if the script
language were simplified enough to allow the average user
to write scripts.
JFW offers uncomplicated, highly focused access to Word and
Internet Explorer. More basic commands would make
it an even stronger program.

Window-Eyes is a versatile, powerful tool for accessing Windows 95.
It provided very good access to Internet
Explorer, Netscape Navigator, and WordPerfect, although access to
Word 97 needs to be improved.  Window-Eyes
provides a variety of ways of altering its performance that do not
require knowledge of computer programming.

Window-Eyes' many key conflicts with the hot keys of Windows
applications may cause confusion for beginners.
Its "bypass" key, which passes the command to the Windows
application, and the ability to assign a different key
combination to each command are ways around this problem.

Group 2
WinVision performed well during testing.  We had fewer off-screen
model problems with Winvision running than with most
other screen readers tested. More thorough documentation, an
alternative command structure, and more program
configuration files would better complement WinVision's power and
stability.

Window Bridge is best suited for advanced users.  It has a number
of efficiency-oriented features, but it is unlikely
that beginning users will be successful without training.  Window
Bridge sometimes gave extraneous speech and
was somewhat unstable in the tests conducted for this evaluation.
Skilled users, however, will appreciate the
advanced features and be able to navigate around the program's
problems.

Group 3
ScreenPower performed some specific tasks well, such as reading the
nonstandard menus in Word 97.  Its "Learn
Keys" mode made it possible to review its commands quickly.  The
fact that ScreenPower's command to read a
whole window would not function greatly hindered its performance
during this review.  The computer crashed
repeatedly after returning to Windows from a DOS session.
ScreenPower lacked essential features, such as a find function, a
command to read a dialogue box, and the ability
to indicate the relationships between items in Windows Explorer.
It was sluggish in responding to arrow keys that
were used to move through text and menus.

ASAW offers the user the ability to load the program before logging
onto a network; an easy-to-use keypad layout;
a free, full-functioning demonstration; and sound effects for
common operations. However, it lacks basic features
such as Find, Read Paragraph, and Read Sentence commands and has
few tools to control what is spoken. This lack
of user control over what is spoken and in what order things are
spoken make ASAW an inefficient tool for
Windows access.

----------
End of Document