Couple points of clarification here.  The newest version of IBM Home Page
Reader works with Internet Explorer, not Netscape.  Also, JAWS does not use
Microsoft's Active Accessibility (MSAA) to display pages in Internet
Explorer.  It uses a different technology, known as the document object
model, to get its page views.  Window-Eyes uses MSAA.  Neither technology
interprets graphics.  They merely provide access to the text being
displayed in Internet Explorer and allow the screen reader to present that
text in a layout that's more friendly to screen readers.

I'm not trying to be difficult but of late I've heard people thinking that
screen readers have some magic to interpret images.  I don't believe you
think such but I do wonder where these ideas come from at times.

Kelly

At 05:48 PM 2/7/01 -0500, you wrote:
>My experience as a blind user is that, with sufficient access provided by a
>Windows screen reader utilizing the Microsoft Accessibility model to
>interpret the graphics on the screen, a good Windows screen reader (JAWS for
>Windows, WindowEyes, etc.), and Internet Explorer 5.0 or above is the
>preferred choice.  Some people are also using Netscape Navigator, but it is
>not always as readily accessible as Internet Explorer.  I think the IBM
>HomePage Reader works with Netscape pretty well, but it means learning yet
>another piece of software to browse the internet, versus using a screen
>reader that is already available (most people are already using JAWS for
>Windows).  Artic WinVision used to work well with Internet Explorer, but the
>latest version did not work as well, at least for me, and motivated me
>finally to switch to JAWS.  So to answer your question, using Internet
>Explorer with a good screen reader for Windows would be my choice.    There
>is no sense even considering a DOS browser and a DOS screen reader, as DOS
>is nearly if not completely obsolete, and the next version of Windows is
>eliminating DOS altogether.
>
>- Jackie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sherman, Sarah [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:58 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Graphics-based browsers vs. text-based browsers
>
>
>My colleague Axel Schmetzke and I are pondering screen reader users'
>preference of browsers. Could you please share, in your experience (personal
>or otherwise), do you find more people using a screen reader with text-only
>browsers, or graphics-based browsers? If you use a screen reader, what is
>your preference? If you train others, do you train with the screen reader in
>conjunction with a text browser, or a graphics browser?
>
>We have found that often, it is much easier to navigate the WWW with a
>screen reader when a text-only browser like Lynx is used. You don't have to
>worry about structure as much, and anything that Lynx couldn't interpret,
>chances are JAWS (or another screen reader) wouldn't be able to interpret it
>anyway. On the other hand, graphics-based browsers such as Netscape and IE
>have structural designs that are harder to navigate with the screen reader
>(though if the site is generated with accessibility in mind, it can be
>done).
>
>My apologies for cross-posting. Thank you very much for any experiences you
>share!
>
>Sarah Sherman
>Program Coordinator
>Assistive Technology Program
>UW-Stevens Point
>715-346-4980